IMPORTANT POINT
Burden is entirely on husband to satisfy Court that he had pronounced talaq in the manner approved by law.

ORDER

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised as per the Islamic rites and customs on 18.4.2010 at Palayamkottai. A male child was born through the wedlock. The parties are doctors by profession. The respondent herein filed DVC No.2 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli under Sections 12(1) and (2), 18(a) and (b), 19(a), (b) and (c), 20(1)(d) and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 23.02.2021 directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation for having inflicted domestic violence on the complainant and a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the minor child. Protection order was also granted. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2021 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The appeal was dismissed on 02.12.2022. Questioning the same, this civil revision petition came to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds. He submitted that the complainant / respondent herein is a Government doctor and that she was never subjected to any kind of domestic violence. He called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant relief as prayed for.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the impugned orders are well reasoned and that they do not call for interference.

4. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

5. As already noted, the parties got married on 18.04.2010. The relationship between them came under strain. The complainant concedes that the revision petitioner sent the first Talaq notice dated 03.08.2017 and the second Talaq notice dated 11.09.2017. The revision petitioner claimed that the third Talaq notice was sent on 11.11.2017 following which the Shariat Council of Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath granted divorce certificate on 29.11.2017. He also admits having married one Halima on 28.01.2018. On the other hand, the complainant / wife asserts that her marriage with the revision petitioner was not dissolved and that the third Talaq notice was never received and that during the subsistence of their marriage, the revision petitioner marrried Halima.

6. The revision petitioner is a well-qualified doctor who was employed in Apollo Hospital and whose family is also possessed of considerable properties. There is no serious challenge to the maintenance order passed in favour of the minor child. The only question that calls for consideration is whether the courts below were justified in awarding compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the complainant.

7. As per the definition of the term “domestic violence” set out in Section 3 of the Central Act 43 of 2005, any act or conduct of the husband which injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental to the wife shall constitute domestic violence. If a Hindu/Christian/Parsi/Jew husband contracts second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage, it would constitute cruelty besides being an offence of bigamy. It would obviously be considered an act of domestic violence entitling the wife to claim compensation under Section 12 of the Act. Will this proposition apply in the case of Muslims ?. The answer is “Yes”. It is true that a Muslim male is legally entitled to contract as many as four marriages. For this legal right or liberty, there is only a limited hohfeldian jural correlative on the part of the wife. The wife cannot stop the husband from entering into a second marriage. She, however, has the right to seek maintenance and refuse to be a part of the matrimonial household. The Hon’ble Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the decision reported in ILR 2021 Karnataka 746 (Yusuf Patel V. Ramjanbi) held that tho