Prematurity of the writ petition pending criminal trial

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent viz., Chief Kazi of the Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 09.06.2006 and certified by him on 27.07.2006 and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to pay compensation of Rs.7,00000/- jointly and severally by way of damages to the petitioners herein.

2. When the writ petition came up on 29.01.2007, this court admitted the writ petition. In the miscellaneous petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to register the complaint dated 31.07.2006. This Court dismissed the miscellaneous petition and directed the main writ petition itself to be posted for final hearing in the first week of November 2007.

3. It is the case of the first petitioner that she is the wife of one T.C.A.Mohamed Yusuff, the third respondent herein. The second and third petitioners are her daughters and the fourth petitioner is his son. Her husband was a beef merchant. She got married with the third respondent on 20.08.1987 as per Islamic customary rites and practice and the marriage was duly recorded in the Nikkah Register of Padi Jumma Masjid. She was carrying on her matrimonial life over 20 years and she gave birth to petitioners 2 to 4. She was given 28 sovereigns of gold and other household items at the time of marriage. During the initial stage of married life, she was residing with the third respondent at his native place and subsequently, she shifted her matrimonial residence at Mannurpet. The third respondent did not have any regular income and took to drinking. Therefore, they shifted their residence to the address at Mannurpet in Chennai so as to have the financial support of her parents. The third respondent commences his business at Padi. Her father gave a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-to her husband for starting an individual business at Mannurpet. However, he could not run the business successfully. She also started helping her husband. While so, the third respondent expressed his desire to go to his native place at Velambur in Cheyyar Taluk to meet his parents. Though he promised to come back soon, he did not come back. Subsequently, she came to know in July 2006 that the third respondent had got married to another woman at his native place and living with her separately. Because of the action of the third respondent, the petitioners were left to fed for themselves.

4. When she made enquiries with the local people, She came to know that the third respondent had obtained an authoritative verdict/Fatwa from the second respondent dissolving her marriage with the third respondent by way of showing a Kulanama (divorce proposal given by wife to husband as per Islamic Law) dated 09.06.2006 alleged to have been written by the first petitioner. It is only on the basis of the same, the local jamath people permitted the third respondent to marry another muslim woman on the wrong belief that she had opted to get divorce from the third respondent. But she has not given any letter of kulanama to the third respondent. The letter dated 09.06.2006 alleged to have been signed by her is nothing but an act of fraud and forgery. None of the petitioners herein had given the said letter and even the address of the petitioners is not mentioned in the letter dated 09.06.2006. Despite these transgression evident on the face of the record, the second respondent had given authoritative verdict/Fatwa on the same day on 09.06.2006 holding that marriage was dissolved by way of 'Khula' and the third respondent ceased to be husband of the first petitioner and that he could marry another muslim lady as per Islamic Shariah. The petitioner has sent a representation to the second respondent on 27.07.2006 asking to intervene on the same. The second respondent informed that he gave his opinion based on the letter of the third respondent enclosing the copy of the Khula given by her. The action of the second respondent was highly objectio