Skip to content


K.A.S. Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. Minor Jaithoon Bivi Ammal, Represented by Her Next Friend and Guardian, Shaik Dawood Rowther - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 770 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Mad831; (1951)IMLJ449
ActsMuhammadan Law; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20
AppellantK.A.S. Mohammed Ibrahim
RespondentMinor Jaithoon Bivi Ammal, Represented by Her Next Friend and Guardian, Shaik Dawood Rowther
Appellant AdvocateS. Amudachari, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK. Raman, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredTulsiman v. Abdul Latif Mia
Excerpt:
- - raises an interesting question as to whether a muslim wife divorced by an irrevocable 'thalak',at karur, has a right to sue for the interim maintenance amount due & return of her clothes & jewels, at tanjore, her normal place of residence at the time when the 'thalak' was pronounced & the place at which the 'thalak' was made known to her......a muslim husband, the moment he pronounces an irrevocable 'thalak' is bound to carry the divorced wife's clothes & jewels in a bundle & seek her out wherever she is & deliver them to her. that will, indeed, be an effective check on divorce, perhaps too effective a check. i do not think that the muhammadan law, or any other law, contemplates such an onerous obligation on the part of the divorced husband, especially when the right to divorce the wife is granted to him at his will & pleasure & not for any justifiable reason. mr. raman, for the wife, also does not seriously contend for this position. 2. mr. amudachari next urged that an irrevocable 'thalak' operates at once, & at the place where it is pronounced, & need not be even communicated to the wife, & that, therefore, it is.....
Judgment:

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.

1. This petn. raises an Interesting question as to whether a Muslim wife divorced by an irrevocable 'thalak', at Karur, has a right to sue for the interim maintenance amount due & return of her clothes & jewels, at Tanjore, her normal place of residence at the time when the 'thalak' was pronounced & the place at which the 'thalak' was made known to her. The lower Ct. held that part of the cause of action arose at Tanjore because the irrevocable 'thalak' was communicated to her when she was living at that place; & because the husband was bound to seek out the wife, who was resident at Tanjore & return to her jewels & clothes there as soon as he pronounced the irrevocable 'thalak' & communicated it. There is also an implied assumption In the lower Ct's order that, in any event, the wife could bring the cause of action at Tanjore, where shewas normally living, the moment her rights to the clothes & jewels on the irrevocable 'thalak' arose. Of course, as urged by Mr. Amudachari, for the husband, it would be most unreasonable to contend that a Muslim husband, the moment he pronounces an irrevocable 'thalak' is bound to carry the divorced wife's clothes & jewels in a bundle & seek her out wherever she is & deliver them to her. That will, indeed, be an effective check on divorce, perhaps too effective a check. I do not think that the Muhammadan law, or any other law, contemplates such an onerous obligation on the part of the divorced husband, especially when the right to divorce the wife is granted to him at his will & pleasure & not for any Justifiable reason. Mr. Raman, for the wife, also does not seriously contend for this position.

2. Mr. Amudachari next urged that an irrevocable 'thalak' operates at once, & at the place where it is pronounced, & need not be even communicated to the wife, & that, therefore, it is unreasonable to attach any significance to the husband's letter to Tanjore communicating the divorce to the wife. He relied upon a ruling in 'Ahmed Kazim Molla v. Khatun Bibi : AIR1933Cal27 , where It has been definitely stated that any Muhammadan of a sane mind who has attained puberty can divorce his wife without assigning any cause, & can do so even in the absence of the wife, & that the irrevocable 'thalak' will take effect forthwith without any communication to her, even though she may not be aware of it at all. But that, In my opinion, will not help Mr. Amudachari's client in this case. An irrevocable 'thalak' only terminates the wife's right to 'conjugal relationship', & makes the venue for filing a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, if any subsist, at the place where the irrevocable 'thalak' is pronounced. But the right to interim maintenance & the clothes & jewels arises out of art irrevocable 'thalak' & hence stands on a different footing. As held in 'Tulsiman v. Abdul Latif Mia : AIR1936Cal97 , the divorced wife can bring the suit in respect of her prompt dower &, obviously therefore, also for her clothes & jewels at the place where she resides at the time of the divorce & receives notice thereof. So, the pltf. could bring the suit in the Tanjore Ct., as she did, in respect of her Interim maintenance during the intervening period allowed under the Muhammadan law, & her clothes & Jewels.

3. So there is no reason to interfere with thelower Ct's order. This civil revn. petn., is dismissed, but, in the peculiar circumstances, without costs, as it seems to me to have been filedbecause of the observations of the lower Ct. thatthe husband was bound to take the Jewels &clothes; of the wife, seeking her out wherever shewas, & deliver them.


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