The judgment established the importance of upholding compromises, the strict adherence to legal requirements in pronouncing talaq under Muhammedan Law, and the absence of provisions for the restitution of conjugal rights in Muslim Law.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Rawal, J.

This judgment shall dispose of three petitions, Mat.Appeal No.18/2021 titled as Aneesha v. Navas & Anr. preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22/01/2020 in O.P(Others)No.594/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Alappuzha whereby the claim of the appellant/wife for return of the gold ornament has been disallowed and a counter claim of the husband for return of 16 sovereigns has been allowed; Mat.Appeal No.170/2021 preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20/08/2018 rendered in O.P.No.209/2015 of the Family Court, Alappuzha preferred by the wife for setting aside the talak dated 09/01/2015 as it did not suffice the requirement of the Muslim Law and as well as the condition/guidelines given by the Division Bench of this Court in Asbi vs. Hashim M.U, 2021 (6) KLT 292 and Mat.Appeal No.962/2018 preferred by the wife against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 20/08/2018 dismissing the claim with regard to the restitution of conjugal rights.

2. It is most unfortunate that after performance of the talaq and arriving at some settlement, parties again have been litigating in the court. The aforementioned observations are based upon events which have occurred prior to filing of the present cases.

3. The preface of the matter in past was that the marriage between Navas and Aneesha was performed on 28/05/2006. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. At the time of the marriage, husband had given certain mehar and the parents of the wife stated to have given 45 sovereigns of gold, two bangles and cash amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Matrimonial discord and disputes between the parties resulted into registration of case under Section 498A IPC. Wife preferred O.P.No.150/2013 for claiming the return of the gold ornaments. In the aforementioned pending O.P., a compromise was arrived at between the parties resulting into submission of M.C.No.96/2013. As per the terms and conditions of the compromise, wife had to withdraw the claim with regard to return of the gold ornaments in O.P.No.150/2013 and the issue with regard to the maintenance and custody of the children was also settled including the settlement with regard to the four criminal cases. Husband had agreed to give maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the wife. Thereafter the wife sent a legal notice to the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. On receipt of the notice, husband pronounced talaq to the wife three times.

4. It is in this background of the matter, three cases as noticed above has been filed. Learned trial court dismissed O.P.No.594/2015 on the legal ground that if at all there was any case in favour of the wife, the remedy would have been to challenge the compromise on certain conditions as party had acted upon the terms and conditions of the compromise. Even the claim with regard to the gold ornaments was given up by withdrawing O.P.No.150/2013. No independent evidence was led by the wife to substantiate her claim with regard to the gold ornaments.

5. Counsel representing the appellant in Mat.Appeal No.18/2021 arising out of O.P.No.594/2015 submitted that since the wife was of the belief that the claim would revive and in case this Court finds that certain evidence and documents have not been placed on record, Mat.Appeal may be remanded with a liberty to revive the case and permit the wife to lead evidence subject to other side also giving the same opportunity.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the wife in Mat. Appeal No.962/2018 submitted that no doubt the court had partly allowed the O.P. by holding the talaq to be illegal and against the guidelines and the law laid on by the Division Bench of this Court (supra), but equally so, the court was to examine the history of the case for, parties have been litigating since long and wife wanted to reside with the husband. In this back ground, the matter was required to be decreed in its entirety by granting the decree of restitution.

7. Learned counsel representing the husband in Mat.A.No. 17