Karnataka High Court
Dadakhalandar S/O Hussainkhan Pathan vs Nasimbanu D/O Meerasab Mugut on 17 October, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB
MFA No. 100129 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100129 OF 2015 (FC)
BETWEEN:
DADAKHALANDAR S/O. HUSSAINKHAN PATHAN,
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:BSNL EMPLOYEE,
R/O: MILAN COLONY,
GUDIHAL ROAD, HUBLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. NASIMBANU D/O. MEERASAB MUGUT,
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GODKE PLOT BEHIND, KALLIMANI HOUSE,
PRESENTLY R/O. OF C/O: R.M.SHETTY,
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M PLOT NO. 383, MAHALAXMI NAGAR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
BEHIND LAXMI TEK, BENAKANHALLI,
DHARWAD
BENCH TQ AND DIST: BELGAUM.
Date: 2025.11.12
11:53:25 +0530 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FC ACT 1984, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2014
PASSED IN OS NO.22/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE FAMILY
COURT BELGAUM, AND DECREE THE SUIT FILED BY THE
PLAINTIFF IN O.S. NO.22/2013, DECLARING THAT MARRIAGE
BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT IS DISSOLVED
IN VIEW OF TALAQ DATED 05.01.2011 AND AS A
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, RESTRAIN THE DEFENDANT FROM
CLAIMING AS WIFE OF THE PLAINTIFF.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB
MFA No. 100129 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.) This is an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by appellant/husband praying for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.22/2013 dated 01.12.2014 as per Annexures-A and Annexure-B on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Belgaum and to decree the suit, declaring that marriage of the plaintiff and defendant is dissolved in view of Talaq dated 05.01.2011 and to restrain defendant from claiming as wife of the plaintiff.
2. Parties would be referred to by their ranks, as they were before the trial Court for sake of convenience and clarity.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR
3. The husband-plaintiff has filed the suit before Family Court, Belgaum praying for a declaration that marriage between him and defendant was dissolved in view of the Talaq dated 05.01.2011 and consequently, to restrain defendant from claiming relationship of wife and husband in whatsoever manner and for such other reliefs.
4. The case of plaintiff before the trial Court in nutshell is that he is having a wife who was suffering from ill-health and has got four children. To look after his ailing wife and children, he married defendant on 08.05.2002 by following the customs prevailing in Mohammedan law by observing Nikah. Defendant joined the matrimonial house at Gopankoppa, Hubli, and lived with the ailing first wife and children for about 3 months. Thereafter, she adopted illegal tactics, started quarrelling with plaintiff, his first wife and children. All efforts made by plaintiff to resolve the issue went in vain. Hence, he took a house on rent at Aroodh Nagar, old Hubli and then defendant started living in that house. Irrespective of the non-cooperation from -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR defendant, plaintiff maintained both houses. Defendant became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter on 05.03.2003 by name Rabiya. Defendant thereafter adopted further tactics of leaving the house without intimation and demanding money. The life of plaintiff became precarious and thus, he was forced to write a letter to the father of defendant including her sister. But there was no response from them. Defendant was a quarrelsome lady and not cooperating with him. The elder sister of defendant and her husband were living with defendant and they instigated her for the aforesaid behaviour. Even though plaintiff has given complaint with Jamaat people and they advised defendant, she did not mend her attitude and continued her illegal acts. She has lodged a false complaint with Mahila Police suppressing the truth. Police advised the defendant after enquiry to seek a divorce through jamaat. On 05.03.2010 defendant and her sister visited the office of plaintiff, abused him in filthy language and she demanded to be settled in Belgaum near by the house of R.M. Shetty or else -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR to give her Talaq and to pay ₹10,00,000/- and also threatened the plaintiff that otherwise she would kill him. All the above facts made the plaintiff to give Talaq to defendant and there was no other option for him. Accordingly, on 05.01.2011, in presence of witnesses and by uttering "Talaq, Talaq, Talaq", he has given intimation of Talaq together with iddat period money which was sent to defendant. She deliberately refused to receive it. She has shifted her belongings from Ghodke plot Hubli to Bendgam by taking ₹15,000/ being the deposit amount lying with the owner. Thus, the marital relationship of plaintiff and defendant became cut off from 05.01.2011. By suppressing these facts, defendant approached the Family Court, Belgaum and filed Crl.Misc.No.120/2011 and succeeded in getting ex-parte maintenance order. The plaintiff challenged the same in RPFC No.325/2012 and it was allowed on 11.09.2012 and directed to dispose of the matter afresh, but he was directed to pay maintenance at ₹3,000/- per month to the defendant and her daughter till disposal of the -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR petition. Thus defendant is not his wife and hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.
5. After service of summons, defendant appeared through her counsel and filed her written statement wherein she denied the allegations made against her and further contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit by suppressing true and material facts. After the marriage, defendant joined the plaintiff to lead happy marital life with him at Hubballi and started residing in a rented house near Gopankoppa, Hubballi for 3 months and thereafter plaintiff and defendant stayed in the house of one Nadaf at Aroodha Nagar, Old Hubballi for 3 years; in the house of Mulla, a KSRTC driver at Ghodke Plot, Hubballi for 2-½ years. During this stay of defendant with plaintiff at Aroodha Nagar, she gave birth to a daughter called Rabiya Basari who is aged 11 years and studying in 6th Standard at Government School, Vijayanagar, Belagavi. Since from the day of marriage, plaintiff was harassing the defendant mentally and physically. Defendant was getting frequent severe -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR headaches and she was treated by Dr.S.M.Duani, Neurosurgeon of Hubballi in the year 2007. Defendant has filed police complaint against the plaintiff for inhuman assault on her during their stay at Ghodke plot. Later, plaintiff apologized and the said matter was settled. In the year 2009, plaintiff assaulted the defendant and pushed her against a wall when she was pregnant for 2 months, due to which she suffered bleeding and has to go for M.T.P. at Padma Clinic, Hubballi by Dr.(Mrs) S.S. Konnu on 05.01.2009. During December 2010, plaintiff left the house without telling anything to defendant and he never turned up. As the rent was not paid to the owner of the house, she was not allowed to stay there by the owner. The deposit amount is with the owner of the house. Hence without any option, defendant went to Belagavi and stayed in Belagavi since May 2011. Two-wheeler vehicle is with the defendant and it is lying idle. Defendant is unaware about plaintiff obtaining insurance policy in the name of their daughter Rabiya Basari and it is in force. Plaintiff neglected the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR defendant and her daughter and thus she was constrained to file maintenance case in Crl.Misc.No.120/2011. Only to avoid payment of maintenance and to overcome the order passed in said petition, plaintiff has filed this suit on false and imaginary grounds only as a counter blast to said case. Plaintiff has falsely created the Talaq theory. There was no Talaq and it is not according to the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The marriage articles are in the custody of plaintiff. Hence, the defendant prayed for dismissal of suit.
6. From the above facts, the learned Trial Judge has framed the following issues:
"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that his marriage with the defendant was dissolved in view of Talaq dated 5.1.2011?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the declaration as sought for?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for permanent injunction?
4) What decree or order?"
7. After framing issues, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3, got -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and closed his side before the Trial Court. On behalf of defendant, defendant was examined as DW1, got marked Exhibits D1 to D7 and closed her side before Trial Court. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit of plaintiff on the ground that there was no valid Talaq given by the plaintiff to defendant. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, plaintiff/appellant has preferred the present appeal.
8. Heard arguments of both sides.
9. Learned counsel for appellants-Sri.B.S.Sangati submitted that the learned Trial Judge has not assigned proper reasons while dismissing the suit and his findings are arbitrary, capricious and perverse. Learned Trial Judge has misread the pleadings and evidence on record and thus came to a wrong conclusion which resulted in miscarriage of justice. All the pre-requisites of valid Talaq as per Mohammedan law were fulfilled and the marriage between
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR plaintiff and defendant has been put to an end with effect from 05.01.2011. However, learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the pleadings and evidence on record, which vividly prove that the Talaq uttered three times by the plaintiff on 05.01.2011 was preceded by attempts of reconciliation between the parties and was for a reasonable cause. Learned Trial Judge has not understood the principles of law noted by this Court in the case of Mohammad Ibrahim vs. Meharunissa Begum reported in AIR 2004 KAR 260 and thus came to the wrong conclusion. Learned Trial Judge went beyond the pleadings of defendant. The contract between plaintiff and defendant is that defendant is second wife and she has to look after the ailing first wife of plaintiff, but she did not do so. Learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the documents produced before him in a proper perspective. Plaintiff has given intimation of Talaq and DD money for iddat period to defendant and thereby complied with pre-requisites of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR Talaq; earlier to it, there were sittings of well-wishers and advisors and thus prayed for allowing the appeal.
10. Learned counsel for respondent-Sri.Santhosh B Rawoot submitted his arguments that there shall be pre- requisite sittings in the presence of elders between plaintiff and defendant and there shall be 3 consecutive Talaqs at least a gap of 1 month each for those Talaqs. But those pre- requisites for valid Talaq are not forthcoming in the present case because the plaintiff has attempted triple Talaq at a time by issuing registered postal notice to defendant and thus the Talaq alleged to be given by plaintiff is not correct. He further contended that the allegations made by plaintiff against defendant are not at all proved. Considering these aspects in a right perspective, the learned Trial Judge has rightly dismissed the suit of plaintiff. Hence, prayed for dismissal of appeal with costs throughout.
11. From the above facts, the points that arise for consideration are:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB
MFA No. 100129 of 2015
HC-KAR
i) Whether appellant/plaintiff proves that there
was valid Talaq addressed by him to
defendant and thus the marriage of plaintiff and defendant is dissolved and learned Trial Judge has erroneously not appreciated these facts and wrongly dismissed the suit of plaintiff?
ii) Whether interference on the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge is required?
iii) What order or decree?
Answer to point No.1 :
12. The plaintiff contended that he has given triple Talaq to defendant and it is valid. His contention is that he married defendant only to look after his ailing first wife. But defendant adopted illegal tactics and quarreled with him and because of that he made a separate house to her and even then defendant did not heed his advice. She was not submissive and once she has also lodged complaint before the police and thus, insulted him. Hence, it is impossible for
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR him to live with her. Hence, in presence of witnesses on 05.01.2011, by uttering 'Talaq Talaq Talaq', he divorced the defendant and has given intimation of Talaq together with iddat period money to defendant through post. But, she deliberately refused to receive it and thus he has given valid Talaq to defendant.
13. In the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shayara Bano and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 4609, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 'Talaq- e-biddat' is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently struck it down as 'void'.
14. Only in extremely unavoidable situations, Talaq is permissible. But an attempt for reconciliation is to be made even in such extreme circumstance and if it succeeds, then revocation of Talaq is permissible. Thus, before Talaq attains finality, and becomes irrevocable one has to take essential steps for reconciliation. However, while
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR pronouncing triple Talaq such doors are closed. Hence, it is against the basic tenets of the Quran. Thus, as it is, under Mohammedan law, 'Talaq-e- Biddat' is not a valid form of giving divorce. Moreover, the Legislature has enacted the "Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, wherein as per Section 3 of the Act, 'Talaq-e- Biddat' has been held to be void and illegal.
15. In the instant case, on behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff and his two witnesses have stated in their affidavits evidence regarding when and how, Talaq was given by the plaintiff to defendant. According to their evidence, this Talaq is not pronounced by plaintiff in presence of defendant. According to the contention of plaintiff, plaintiff has pronounced 'Talaq, Talaq, Talaq', on 05.01.2011 in presence of witnesses and thus his marital relationship with defendant became cut off from 05.01.2011 and he sent the iddat
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR money through D.D. to defendant, but she refused to receive it.
16. The above evidence of plaintiff and P.W.2 and P.W.3 reveals that at the time of pronouncing Talaq, defendant or her family members were not present.
17. In this regard, in the cross-examination, the plaintiff has deposed that his parents, elders and people of their Jamaat and also the parents, elders and brothers and people of Jamaat of defendant ought to have been present and compromise talks shall be held twice. He has wether pleaded in the plaint nor stated in his affidavit evidence that all those persons were present before pronouncing triple Talaq and compromise talks took place in their presence.
18. In this regard, only his witnesses-P.W.2 and P.W.3 in their cross-examination have deposed that such compromise talks had taken place. However, none of them have stated that on which date, in which place and in whose presence, such compromise talks had taken place.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR
19. According to the cross-examination of P.W.2, he was present at the time of triple Talaq of plaintiff only for the first time whereas, according to P.W.3, it was second time. Thus, there is no material produced by plaintiff that these witnesses were aware about the procedure to be followed before giving divorce.
20. Without proving that a compromise talk had taken place in presence of parents and elders of both sides, just by uttering the word 'Talaq' thrice by husband will not make the Talaq a valid one.
21. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of defendant to show that such compromise talk had taken place in presence of elders. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that a valid divorce had taken place between plaintiff and defendant.
22. Considering all the above aspects in proper perspective, rightly, learned trial Judge held that plaintiff failed to prove that the Talaq given by him to defendant is
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14151-DB MFA No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR valid one and thus, the declaration sought by him cannot be given and thereby rightly dismissed the suit of plaintiff. Hence, interference on the said judgment and decree is not at all required. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in negative.
23. Point No.3:- In view of findings on point Nos.1 and 2, we proceed to pass the following order:-
Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by appellant-plaintiff is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.22/2013 dated 01.12.2014 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Belgaum.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE VMB CT-CMU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57