State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Secretary,Noorulhuda Muslim ... vs A.Suhara Beevi on 23 August, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/11/518 (Arisen out of Order Dated 16/06/2011 in Case No. CC/04/13 of District Pathanamthitta) 1. SECRETARY,NOORULHUDA MUSLIM JAMA ATH PAZHAKULAM.P.O PATHANAMTHITTA KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. A.SUHARA BEEVI LABBA HOUSE,THEVALAKKARA P.O,POONKULANJI,PATHANAPURAM PATHANAMTHITTA KERALA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 518/2011
JUDGMENT DATED: 23..8..2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Secretary, : APPELLANT
Noorulhuda Muslim Jama-ath,
Pazhakulam.P.O.,
Pathanamthitta District,
Pin - 691 527.
(By Adv.M.Hashim Babu)
A.Suhara Beevi, Labba House, : RESPONDENT
Thevalakkara.P.O.,
Poonkulanji, Pathanapuram,
Kollam District.
(By Adv.Gopalakrishnan Nair)
JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the 2nd opposite party in OP 13/04 in the CDRF, Pathanamthitta. Respondent was the sole complainant. She alleged that her marriage with S.Jamaludeen Rawther was legally solemnized by Sri.K.T.Muhammed Salim Maulavi, the Imam of Pazhakulam, Muslim Jama Ath on payment of required fees and the said marriage was also registered in the register kept in the Jama-ath. Thereafter the complainant approached the 1st opposite party the then president of the Pazhakulam, Muslim Jama Ath for issuing her copy of marriage certificate and also requested him to enter her name in the membership register of the said Jama-ath as the wife of said S.Jamaludeen Rawther. But the 1st opposite party refused her demand saying that her marriage with one Usman labba was existing. The 1st opposite party openly announced the said matter before the general body of the Jama-ath and thereby defamed the complainant. The Munsiff's Court, Adoor as per judgment dated 7.1.2002 has granted decree of divorce with regard to the first marriage of the complainant with Usman Labba. The marriage with Jamaludeen Rawther was solemnized subsequently on 23.3.03 after the confirmation of the decree of divorce. The 1st opposite party denied the marriage certificate to the complainant and refused membership to her for the reason that 1st opposite party was a close friend of Ansari the son of complainant's first husband. Further the first wife of the 2nd husband of the complainant is a close relative of the 1st opposite party. The defamatory statement made by the 1st opposite party caused severe mental agony to the complainant. The opposite parties are bound to issue marriage certificate as the complainant had remitted the required fees for registration of the marriage and the marriage had already been registered in the Jama-ath. The failure to issue marriage certificate and the defamatory statement made by the 1st opposite party amounted to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint to direct issue of marriage certificate, inclusion of complainants name in the membership register of Jama-ath and claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite parties.
2. Once the petition was decided ex-parte by CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The order was challenged in appeal. This Commission set aside the order of the CDRF, Pathanamthitta and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. Subsequent to remand only the 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version. He contended that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum as the subject matter of the complaint did not come under the Consumer Proteciton Act. He denied the alleged marriage of the complainant with Jamaludeen Rawther. As per the byelaws of the Pazhakulam, Muslim Jama Ath the Secretary is the competent authority to issue the marriage certificate. A 2nd marriage is not permitted before the dissolution of the 1st marriage, as per the Islamic Law. The first husband of the complainant, Usman Labba informed the Jama-ath that he had not pronounced Talaq to divorce the complainant. Muhammed Salim Moulavi the Imam who allegedly conducted the marriage has also informed that such a marriage has not taken place as per law. If the 1st marriage was legally divorced the membership of the complainant in Pazhakulam, Muslim Jama-Ath would cease automatically. In that event the marriage of the complainant could be solemnized only at her house or at the place of her new husband and that too can be done only with the approval of the Jama-ath where the family house of the complainant is situated.. E.Y.Muhammed Salim Maulavi who solemnized the marriage of the complainant has stated before the general body of the Pazhakulam, Muslim Jama Ath that the records in respect of the marriage were fabricated and he has not put signature in the marriage register. Parents of the complainant and her husband never applied to Pazhakulam, Muslim Jama Ath for conducting her marriage. No fees was collected for conducting marriage as alleged. The said Jamaludeen Rawther was still receiving the family pension of his deceased wife Parishamma. The entries in the marriage register in respect of the complainant's marriage with Jamaludeen Rawthewr were cancelled as per the decision of the general body of the Jama-ath. Hence the Jama-ath has no liability to issue such a marriage certificate to the complainant. A non muslim is not entitled to be a witness to a talaq kuri. A non member of Pazhakulam, Muslim Jama Ath is not entitled to get any certificate from Pazhakulam, Muslim Jama Ath. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief .
3. Subsequent to the remand the complainant was examined again and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the complainant. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant as PWs 2 and 3. On the side of the 2nd opposite party 4 witnesses were examined and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked. The CDRF, Pathanamthitta as per the judgment dated 16.6.11 rejected the contentions of the 2nd opposite party and allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the CDRF, Pathanamthitta 2nd opposite party has preferred this appeal. The correctness of findings of the CDRF, Pathanamthitta is questioned in this appeal.
4. The marriage of the complainant with Jamaludeen Rawther was allegedly solemnized on 23.3.03 by K.T.Muhammed Salim Moulavi who was the then Imam of Pazhakulam, Muslim Jama Ath on payment of the required fees. When the complainant approached the 1st opposite party who was the then president of the Pazhakulam, Muslim Jama-Ath marriage certificate was denied. Allegedly he made defamatory statement in the general body of the Jama-ath also. Even as per the contentions of the 2nd opposite party in fact the marriage of the complainant with Jamaludeen Rawther was registered in the Pazhakulam, Muslim Jama Ath. The contention is that the registration was subsequently cancelled on finding that the entry was made fraudulently. It is the contention of the appellant that the complainant's earlier marriage with Usman Labba was not legally divorced. So she was not competent to enter into the 2nd marriage with Jamaludeen Rawther. But it can be seen from Ext.A1 that the complainant has instituted O.S.No.217/2001 in the Munsiff Court, Adoor seeking dissolution of her marriage with Usman Labba under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act. Usman remained ex-parte and valid decree was passed on 7.1.2002 dissolving the said marriage. It is not disputed that the 2nd marriage was subsequent to the confirmation of the decree of divorce. Not only that Usman Labba who was the first husband of the complainant was examined as DW4. He admitted that the complainant had instituted OS.217/01 for dissolution of marriage and on 7.1.02 that petition was allowed. There was a mediation talk between the parties and their advocates at the residence of the Advocate of the complainant and settlement was reached. The talaq nama was written at that time. If that be so the marriage of the complainant with DW4 was not clearly subsisting at the time of solemnization the marriage of the complainant with Jamaludeen Rawther on 23.3.03. Not only that Ext.A8 shows that Jamaludeen Rawther had remitted an amount of Rs.250/- as marriage contribution on 23.3.03 Pazhakulam, Muslim Jama Ath for solemnizing his marriage with the complainant. PW2 who was the Secretary of the Jama-ath at the time of solemnization of the second marriage of the complainant also admitted that their marriage was solemnized in the mosque(Pazhakulam Nurul Juma Masjid). The above version also shows that service was offered by the Jama-ath for consideration and thereby rendering them subject to the jurisdiction of the CDRF, if there was in fact deficiency in service.
5. In view of the fact that the first marriage of the complainant as legally divorced when the second marriage was solemnized, the validity of the second marriage cannot be questioned at all.
6. As indicated earlier in view of the contention that the entry regarding the marriage was subsequently cancelled, it is quite obvious that the marriage of the complainant with Jamaludeen Rawther was infact entered in the register of the Jama-ath. Ext.A2 and the evidence of PW2 clearly prove that the marriage of the complainant with Jamaludeen Rawther was infact registered in the jama-ath that too validly after submitting talaq nama, relating to the first marriage of the complainant.
7. An entry regarding a valid marriage could not have been legally cancelled as claimed by the appellant. Not only that there was no ground to cancel the marriage, as the allegation that marriage was found to be illegal is without any substance. According to the appellant the first husband of the complainant submitted complaint regarding the subsequent marriage but no such complaint was infact proved to have been submitted. Even as PW4 Usman Labba had no complaint regarding second marriage of the complainant. Not only that cancellation of the second marriage was not among the agenda of the general body meeting held on 23.5.03. The minutes of that general body meeting was not signed by the person who presided over the general body. His name is not even mentioned. The details of the number of members who supported cancellation were also not included. So obviously the marriage entry was cancelled without any legal foundation and cannot be acted upon. In short after having rendered service for consideration the opposite parties were not justified in denying marriage certificate to the complainant. There is no error in the findings of the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP.13/04 Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.3000/-to the complainant/respondent.
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
ps
[ SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR] PRESIDING MEMBER