Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that 'Court of Kazi’, ‘Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat’, ‘Sharia Court’ etcetera by whatever name or style hold no recognition in law, while allowing maintenance plea by a Muslim woman under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

While setting aside the judgment of the High Court and that of the Family Court, a Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, made the following observations;

1. Finding by Family Court that since it is the second marriage of the couple, there is no possibility of dowry is “unknown to the canons of law and is based on mere conjecture and surmise”
2. Basis for dismissing appellant-wife’s claim for maintenance by the Family Court rested upon a compromise deed – In that regard, Court said, “the Family Court, taking note of the compromise deed dated 22.11.2005, opined that it was the appellant’s character and conduct which led to the rift in the conjugal life of the parties. This reasoning is based on the purported fact that the appellant in the compromise deed had admitted to her mistake. However, from a bare perusal of the compromise deed, it would become apparent that it records no such admission.
3. With respect to the applicability of the decision in Rajesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, Court observed, “No doubt, Rajnesh (supra) was pronounced after the Family Court’s Order and Impugned Order were passed, but its enunciation of the law would entail that maintenance should be reckoned as awarded from the date of filing of the application in this behalf.”

Directions were issued to respondent-husband to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- as maintenance to the wife, from the date of institution of the application before the Family Court in addition to the maintenance fixed earlier for the children.

“Court of Kazi’, ‘Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat’, ‘Sharia Court’ etcetera by whatever name styled have no recognition in law. As noted in Vishwa Lochan Madan (supra), any declaration/decision by such bodies, by whatever name labelled, is not binding on anyone and is unenforceable by resort to any coercive measure”, Court noted in connection with the Divorce petition filed by the Husband.

The Top Court was hearing appeal preferred against the Allahabad High Court judgment in Criminal Revision No. 2829 of 2010 dated 03.08.2018 whereby the revision petition filed by the wife was dismissed and the order of Family Court, Jhansi, not awarding any maintenance to the wife was upheld.

Brief Background

The appellant and the respondent got married on 24.09.2002 as per Islamic customs. From their wedlock, the appellant gave birth to two children.

It was the submission of the wife that the husband use to beat her demanding dowry and had turned her out of the matrimonial home along with the children in May, 2008.

On 16.09.2008 respondent-husband filed suit no. 221 of 2008 in the Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat, Bhopal seeking divorce.

The appellant-wife thereupon filed suit no. 335 of 2008, under S.125 CrPC, 1973 seeking maintenance of Rs. 5000 per month for herself and Rs.1000 for each of the children.

The Family Court vide Order dated 23.04.2010 partly allowed the petition for maintenance and granted Rs.1500 per month to the daughter Aatika and Rs.1000 per month to the son, Muzammil. Appellant’s claim for maintenance was dismissed holding that the respondent-husband did not leave the appellant and rather, she herself, due to her nature and conduct, was the main reason for dispute and her consequent departure from the matrimonial home.

Subsequently, the appellant-wife approached the High Court with a Criminal Revision, which was dismissed noting that since she was living separately from her husband without sufficient reason, therefore the findings made by the family court warranted no intervention.

Case Title: Shahjahan v. State of Uttar Pradesh