Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4190
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU, J.
S. Basheria & Others
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, The Secretary, Home Department & Others
W.P.No.3151 of 2007
Decided On : 12-10-2012
For the Petitioner:M.N.S. Mohamed Habeeb Raja, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, R4 to R6, S. Gomathinayagam, AAG Assisted by Ms. M.E. Raniselvam, AGP, R2, R. Abdul Mubeen for M/s. Md. Ashfaq Rafi, R3, V. Karthikeyan, Advocates.
Ratio
In case of torts and forgery committed by statutory authority which resulted in suffering to a citizen and when criminal proceedings are pending for such forgery, writ Court would not entertain plea for grant of compensation.
Headnote:(A)Constitution of India-Art.21, 226-Fundamental right-Right to life-Divorce-Kula-Forgery-Compensation-Quazi-Writ-Maintainability-Petitioner/wife had sought for compensation from the respondents by stating that her husband had married another lady by producing khula which was allegedly signed by her and certified by Quazi and her signature as available in the document was forged-State resisted the plea by contending that complaint of the petitioner was investigated and her signature was found to be forged and final report was filed before the Court and it was pending before the criminal Court-Held, in case of torts and forgery committed by statutory authority which resulted in suffering to a citizen and when criminal proceedings were pending, writ Court would not order grant of compensation and the petitioner could claim compensation after the completion of the criminal proceeding-Writ petition was dismissed.
(B)Constitution of India-Art.21, 226-Fundamental right-Right to life-Divorce-Kula-Forgery-Compensation-Quazi-Writ-Maintainability- In case of torts and forgery committed by statutory authority which resulted in suffering to a citizen and when criminal proceedings are pending for such forgery, writ Court would not entertain plea for grant of compensation.
The decisions relied on by the petitioner do not support that even before the criminal investigation and trial is complete, the court can order compensation. The decisions cited by the petitioner are all cases where a person was made to suffer illegal incarceration or torture at the hands of the Police authorities and such is not the case herein. Therefore, pending trial, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The rights of the petitioner are relegated to be renewed after the conclusion of the criminal trial. At this stage the writ petition is prematured and no relief can be given to the petitioner,
Para 19
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 objection
