KERALA HIGH COURT
R. Basant and K. Surendra Mohan, JJ.
Ismayil —Petitioner
versus
Fathima —Respondent
W.P. (Civil) No. 28433 of 2010
Decided on 6.9.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:T.H. Abdul Azeez , Advocate.
As Amicus Curiae:M.P.M. Aslam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P. Ramakrishnan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Right to marriage expenses can be included in concept of maintenance which a father is liable to provide for his unmarried daughter.
Headnote:Mohammedan Law—Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—Section 3(b) —Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125—Claim of maintenance, marriage expenses—By unmarried adult daughter—Maintenance, cannot mean different things to followers of different religions—Unless there are compelling reasons, concept of maintenance to be understood identifically in its operation in relation to all communities and religions—Right to marriage expenses can be included in concept of maintenance—Father’s liability to provide for his unmarried daughter—Such a right only against father who has requisite means—Maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC cannot include marriage expenses. (Paras 15, 18, 20 and 28)
R. Basant, J.—How is the concept of maintenance to an unmarried adult daughter to be understood? Does that conceptually include the obligation to meet the marriage expenses of an adult daughter? Is the concept of maintenance payable by a Muslim father to his adult daughter to be understood differently? These are the questions that arise for consideration in this Writ Petition.
2. Reference to the essential factual matrix may be relevant. The husband/father is the petitioner. His wife and daughter had filed O.P.No.1603/09 before the Family Court, Thrissur, claiming past and future maintenance to them as also the prospective marriage expenses of the daughter. This petition was filed under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. An amount of Rs. 1,20,000 towards past maintenance and maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000 per mensem for each towards future maintenance as also an amount of Rs.10,00,000 as prospective marriage expenses of the adult major daughter aged 21 years were claimed.
3. Alongwith the said OP an application was filed for attachment of 50 cents of property belonging to the writ petitioner. That petition was allowed and attachment was effected. An application was filed by the petitioner for lifting the attachment. By the impugned order, the learned Judge rejected the application for lifting the attachment.
4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. Various contentions are raised. Inter alia, the crucial contention is raised that the Muslim father has no obligation to meet the marriage expenses of his adult daughter. The liability to maintain her does not include the liability to meet the marriage expenses. Whatever may be the liability of fathers similarly situated belonging to other religious denominations, the Muslim father has no such legal liability, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is hence prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the application for attachment may be rejected.
5. We found the question raised to be interesting. We requested the counsel to advance detailed arguments. We felt persuaded to seek the assistance of Sri M.P.M. Aslam as amicus curiae. We must acknowledge the able services rendered by Sri M.P.M. Aslam as amicus curiae to this Court.
6. The learned amicus curiae first of all submits that it is not necessary to consider the claim for marriage expenses of the daughter as an incident of the right of maintenance. The learned counsel accepts that the Muslim father in the Indian context undoubtedly has the moral obligation to ensure that his daughter is married and to meet expenses for such marriage. Sri Aslam argues that it is not necessary to treat this as an incident of the right of maintenance of the daughter. It is enough if the same is considered as an obligation imposed by custom or usage. Sri Aslam argues that if such an approach is made, it will be unnecessary to refer to the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937, to justify such a direction for payment of marriage expenses. According to Sri Aslam, under Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, the Personal Law of Muslims is made applicable only in respect of certain specified matters. Maintenance is one such matter. If the right to claim marriage expenses is reckoned as an incident of the right to maintenance, the direction to pay the same will have to be justified under the Muslim Personal Law. Otherwise, if the claim is reckoned as one based on custom or usage, there shall be no obligation to justify the direction for payment of marriage expenses under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat).
7. We extract Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act below:
“2. Application of Personal Law to Muslims— Notwithstanding any customs or usage to the contrary, in all questions (save questions relating to agricultural land) regarding intestate succession, special property of females, including personal property inher