Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to claims under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, establishing that such claims are civil in nature.

ORDER :

1. The aforementioned Intra-Court Reference [ICR] application and Criminal Miscellaneous Case have been posted before us pursuant to an order of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side, for answering the legal question raised by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.04.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.3126 of 2022. The question of law referred to us reads as follows:

“Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a claim under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 , as held in Hassainar v. Raziya, 1993 (2) KLT 805?”

2. Before we embark upon a consideration of the question referred to us, we might notice the factual circumstances under which the reference arose. They are as stated hereinafter.

3. The petitioner in the Crl.M.C was aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.12.2021 in Crl.R.P.No.9 of 2020 of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, that upheld an order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala that had dismissed the claim for maintenance preferred by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as the “1986 Act” for brevity]. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the application under Section 3 of the 1986 Act, that was preferred by the petitioner nine years after the dissolution of her marriage in 2004, was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Magistrate also found that the petitioner had executed an agreement with her husband at the time of pronouncement of Talaq whereby she had relinquished all her rights in connection with the divorce. The claim of the petitioner was therefore dismissed by the Magistrate.

4. In the Revision preferred by the petitioner before the Sessions Court, her contention that the provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply to a claim under Section 3 of the 1986 Act was rejected by the Court by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Hassainar (supra). However, the court found that on the facts of her case, the petitioner having filed her claim within three years from the date of refusal by her husband to pay a reasonable and fair maintenance, the claim was not barred by limitation. On the merits of her case, the Sessions Court found that since the petitioner had relinquished all her rights through the agreement entered into with her husband, her claim could not be considered. The court also found that, at any rate, the petitioner had not proved that the respondent husband had sufficient means to pay the amount claimed by her. The Sessions Court therefore dismissed the revision petition.

5. In the Crl.M.C filed before the learned Single Judge of this Court, the grievance of the petitioner was essentially with regard to the findings of the Sessions Court dismissing her claim on the ground that she had relinquished all her rights under the 1986 Act through the agreement entered into with her husband at the time of pronouncement of the Talaq, and further that she had not proved that her husband had sufficient means to pay the amount claimed by her. Significantly, there was no challenge to the specific finding of the Sessions Court that the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply to claim petitions preferred under Section 3 of the 1986 Act, probably because the Sessions Court had found in favour of the petitioner on the point of limitation by holding that on the facts of the case, the petitioner’s cl