Skip to content


Khacheru Vs. Mt. Khairunissa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 106 of 1947
Judge
Reported inAIR1952All638
ActsDissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 - Sections 2
AppellantKhacheru
RespondentMt. Khairunissa
Advocates:L.M. Roy, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
family - marriage - section 2(a)(vii) of dissolution of muslim marriages act, 1939 - husband assaulting wife within 21 days of her marriage - locking in room - case of habitual ill treatment - sufficient for dissolution of marriage. - - her life was made miserable. 7. i see no good reason to interfere with the decree passed by the lower appellate court & dismiss the appeal.bind basni prasad, j.1. this is a deft's appeal arising out of a suit by a wife for the dissolution of marriage. parties are muhammadans.2. it is the common case of the parties that the plff. mt. khairunnisa, was married to the deft, about two & a half years prior to the suit, she was minor then & therefore, she stayed with her father. her age at the time of the suit was about sixteen years. it seems that the deft. insisted that she should come to live with him. her father desired that she should go to him after attaining majority. this appears to have sown the seeds of discord, between the parties. it was alleged by the plff. that when she was coming in a bullook-cart with her parents from her maternal grandfather's place, she was forcibly taken away by the deft. & his party. she.....
Judgment:

Bind Basni Prasad, J.

1. This is a deft's appeal arising out of a suit by a wife for the dissolution of marriage. Parties are Muhammadans.

2. It is the common case of the parties that the plff. Mt. Khairunnisa, was married to the deft, about two & a half years prior to the suit, She was minor then & therefore, she stayed with her father. Her age at the time of the suit was about sixteen years. It seems that the deft. insisted that she should come to live with him. Her father desired that she should go to him after attaining majority. This appears to have sown the seeds of discord, between the parties. It was alleged by the plff. that when she was coming in a bullook-cart with her parents from her maternal grandfather's place, she was forcibly taken away by the deft. & his party. She remained there for about 20 or 22 days & daring this period she was subjected to great cruelty. She was beaten & was shut in a room. On these groands she prayed for a declaration for the dissolution of marriage.

3. The deft, denied the cruelty & resisted the claim.

4. The trial Court held that cruelty was not proved & dismissed the suit. In appeal learned Civil Judge held that cruelty was established. He accordingly decreed the claim.

5. It appears from the judgment o the learned Civil Judge that he was much impressed with the evidence of the plff. & believed her in entirety. It must, therefore, be taken that the plff. was assaulted by the deft. & subjected to cruelty. Her life was made miserable.

6. The respondent has remained absent, though duly served with a notice. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, having regard to the language of Section 2(viii)(a), Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, it was necessary for the plff. to prove that she was 'habitually ill treated'. Learned counsel contends that when she lived with the deft. only for 20 or 22 days, any ill-treat, ment meted out to her cannot be said to be a 'habitual ill-treatment'. The word 'habitual' I means by habit. When the deft. from the very start began to ill treat the plff. & to beat her and never showed the affection of a husband towards her, it is clear that he, by his conduct, showed that his habit was one of maltreatment of his wife. No hard & fast rule can be laid down as to the period required for proving 'habitual ill-treatment' of a wife. I am inclined to the view that if within the first twenty days of the wife, living with her husband, she is assaulted by him, shut up in a room and ill-treated in other manners, it is a case of habitual ill-treatment & the inference would not be unreasonable that the husband would not, in future, treat her with affection.

7. I see no good reason to interfere with the decree passed by the lower appellate Court & dismiss the appeal.


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