Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 2163
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Najma Begam & Others - Appellant
Versus
Mohammed A1 Amin, Rep. by Power of Attorney, Mohammed Ashraf, Karaikal - Respondent
Crl. O.P. Nos. 18663, 26331, 21022 & 23333 of 2018 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 13043, 13044, 11412, 15142, 15144 & 9853 of 2018
Decided On : 17-06-2022
For the Petitioners:N.A. Nissar Ahmed, Advocate. For the Respondent:R. Sreedhar, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a remarriage after obtaining a divorce decree, in accordance with the iddat period and legal provisions, is valid and cannot be challenged through an abusive private complaint.
Headnote:
Criminal Original Petitions - Quashing of proceedings - Section 482 of Cr.P.C - Muslim Law - Civil Court decree - Marriage dissolution - Iddat period - Remarriage - Abuse of process of law
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a private complaint filed by a husband against his former wife and others for bigamy and related offenses. The wife had remarried after obtaining a divorce decree from the Civil Court. The husband contended that the wife's remarriage was illegal as the divorce decree was still in force.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that at the time of the private complaint, the marriage between the husband and the wife had been dissolved by a competent Civil Court decree, and the wife had remarried after observing the iddat period and waiting for more than a year. The court concluded that the private complaint was an abuse of the process of law and liable to be rejected.
Issues: The main issue was whether the wife's remarriage after obtaining a divorce decree was legal and whether the private complaint filed by the husband was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Civil Court decree, the Muslim Law provisions regarding iddat period and remarriage, and the timing of the wife's remarriage to determine the legality of the remarriage and the validity of the private complaint.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal original petitions and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.161/2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal, concluding that the private complaint was an abuse of the process of law.
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records and quash all proceedings in C.C.No.161 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal in so far as the petitioners are concerned.)
Common Order
1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.161 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
2. Crl.O.P.No.21022 of 2018 has been filed by A1, A4, A5, A6 and A8. A1 is the wife of the petitioner; A2 is the mother of A1; A3 is the father of A1; A4 is the second husband of the petitioner; A6 is the neighbour. A9 is the Townkazi.
3. On 02.06.2013, the respondent herein had married the first petitioner's daughter namely A.S.Jesima Yasmine as per Muslim Law and the respondent treated the 1st petitioner with physical and mental cruelty and forced her to dispose of her 40 sovereigns jewels and property thereby compelling her to file a suit in O.S.No.296 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikal, for divorce against the respondent herein. By a judgment and decree dated 25.11.2015, the learned Judge has decreed the said suit by dissolving the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent. Thereafter, pursuant to the Civil Court decree, the Government town Khazi has opined that the first petitioner ought to maintain iddat for a period of three months after divorce had been granted by Court and thereafter, she was eligible to get another marriage vide his opinion dated 28.01.2016. Thereafter, on 01.05.2017, the 1st petitioner's daughter married one, Shahul Hamid Bathusha, the 3rd petitioner herein, who was arrayed as A4 and marriage certificate was issued on 23.05.2017.
4. The private complaint given by the first respondent herein has been taken on file in C.C.No.161 of 2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal and summons were also issued. Challenging the said summons, all these Criminal Original Petitions have been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent/husband would submit that two suits have been filed by the husband before the civil Court in O.S.No.289 of 2015 for restitution of conjugal rights, while so O.S.No.296 of 2015 has been filed by the wife for dissolution of marriage. The suit filed by the husband in O.S.No.289 of 2015 was dismissed for default on 04.03.2016. The suit filed by the Wife in O.S.No.296 of 2015 was decreed exparte on 25.11.2015. Subsequently, the husband filed I.A.No.448 of 2016 for restoration of suit in O.S.No.289 of 2015 with the petition to condone the delay of 61 days and another I.A.No.449 of 2016 was filed to set aside the order dated 25.11.2015 passed in O.S.No.296 of 2015, before the civil Court. Subsequently, on transfer, the said Interlocutory Applications were renumbered as I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2019. Further, the husband has also filed a private complaint on 24.07.2017. On the date of filing of the private complaint, the Interlocutory Applications filed for restoration of the suit, were dismissed for default and to set aside the exparte order has also been pending.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21022 of 2018 would submit that even before the filing of the private complaint, daughter of the 1st petitioner got remarried on 01.05.2017, pursuant to the civil Court's order dated 25.11.2015. Though the private complaint was initially filed under Sections 494, 495 & 496 r/w 34 I.P.C, subsequently it has been scrolled out.
7. From the records, it reveals that the above private complaint by the husband was after the second marriage after filing petition to set aside the exparte decree along with the petition to condone the delay for restoration of the suit. It appears that all the petitions have been dismissed by the competent Civil Court (Family Court), Karaikal.
8. It remains to be stated that by virtue of the civil Court decree da
