Talaq pronounced without reconciliation is invalid; divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, affirming Family Court's jurisdiction to hear such claims.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

In the light of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 whether a divorced muslim wife is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and whether “talaq” without attempting for a reconciliation between the parties is valid, are the main issues raised before us for consideration.

2. The above appeal and the revision petition arise from the common order dated 31.10.2016 in OP No.1178 of 2014 and MC No.367 of 2014 on the files of the Family Court, Thrissur. Since the parties and the cause of action are the same, the above cases are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment.

3. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, “husband” and “wife”.

4. OP No.1178 of 2014 was filed by the wife for return of gold ornaments, household articles and money. The wife also filed MC No.367 of 2014, along with her two minor children, claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Family Court, after elaborate consideration of the issues, decreed OP No.1178 of 2014, directing the husband and his parents to return 145 sovereigns of gold ornaments and household articles listed out in Schedule B to the petition. MC No.367 of 2014 was allowed by the Family Court, directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- to the wife and Rs.4,000/- each to the minor children.

5. Challenging the above, the husband is before us in these proceedings.

6. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.07.2008. Two male children were born in the wedlock. The wife alleged that, at the time of her marriage, she received 145 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her parents and 10 sovereigns as gifts from her relatives; and on the next day of the marriage, her father, who was employed in a gulf country, gave Rs.5,00,000/- as gift for purchasing a car. After one month of marriage, the wife became pregnant. The husband returned to gulf for his employment. It is alleged that, during the month of November, 2008, the husband’s father demanded 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments by convincing her that some investment can be made in a scheme of the Navarathna Jewellery so that she can get a steady income of Rs.8,000/- per month. Accordingly, she entrusted 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the mother-in-law as a trustee; and from her, the father-in-law received those gold ornaments and sold the same for Rs.4,00,000/-; however, the amounts received from the sale of those ornaments were deposited in his name. It is further alleged that, as a customary practice, household articles listed out in Schedule B were taken to the matrimonial home after the birth of their first child. It is her further allegation that, when the husband came from the gulf in August, 2009, he demanded her gold ornaments for constructing a residential building promising that the parents of the husband will execute a document in favour of the husband. For constructing the foundation of the house, he sold 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the wife and the sale proceeds of Rs.1,00,000/- was entrusted by the husband to the father-in-law. It is further alleged that, for the construction of the residential house, 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the wife were taken by the father- in-law as a trustee; and accordingly, the money received by the sale of 35 sovereigns and 110 sovereigns of gold ornaments were utilized for the construction of the residential building of 2090 sq.ft. According to the wife, after c