Skip to content


Usmanbhai Samadbhai Vs. Bai Sakina - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Family
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 648 of 1926
Judge
Reported inAIR1927Bom176; (1927)29BOMLR106
AppellantUsmanbhai Samadbhai
RespondentBai Sakina
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
mahomedan law-divorce-iddat by the divorced wife.;under mahomedan law, the divorced wife may observe her iddat wherever she happens to reside at the time of her divorce. it is not necessary that she should do so in the house of her husband. - - 133 and 134, it is perfectly clear that the proposition of law contended for by the appellant is entirely erroneous. accordingly, the requirements of mahomedan law were satisfied......there is no valid divorce. this is founded on the suggestion that mahomedan law requires the wife to observe her iddat entirely in the house of her husband. for that proposition a passage was cited from a work on mussalman law by abdur rahman at p. 180.2. but, on looking at the authorities to which the author refers, and in particular to hamilton's hedaya at pp. 133 and 134, it is perfectly clear that the proposition of law contended for by the appellant is entirely erroneous. on the contrary, it is stated at page 133 :-it is incumbent upon a woman under edit that she observe and accomplish the same in the place where she was resident at the period of divorce taking place...whether that be her own accustomed dwelling, or a house where she may be upon a visit (that of her parents,.....
Judgment:

Amberson Marten, C.J.

1. The only point raised in this appeal is that the wife did not observe her period of iddat as required by Mahomedan law, and that, therefore, there is no valid divorce. This is founded on the suggestion that Mahomedan law requires the wife to observe her iddat entirely in the house of her husband. For that proposition a passage was cited from a work on Mussalman Law by Abdur Rahman at p. 180.

2. But, on looking at the authorities to which the author refers, and in particular to Hamilton's Hedaya at pp. 133 and 134, it is perfectly clear that the proposition of law contended for by the appellant is entirely erroneous. On the contrary, it is stated at page 133 :-

It is incumbent upon a woman under Edit that she observe and accomplish the same in the place where she was resident at the period of divorce taking place...whether that be her own accustomed dwelling, or a house where she may be upon a visit (that of her parents, for instance), because this is so ordered in the Koran ; and it also appears in the traditionary precepts of the Prophet that he said to a woman whose husband was slain, 'stay in your own house until your Edit be accomplished.'

3. In the present case when the Talaq (Ex. 35) was pronounced by the husband, the wife was staying in the house of her father, where she remained to perform her iddat. Accordingly, the requirements of Mahomedan law were satisfied.

4. This appeal will, therefore, be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //