Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The above two appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arise out of the judgment and order dated 29.01.2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 5 of 1992. MATA No. 11 of 2005 has been filed by the husband, who was the respondent before the Court below, and MATA No. 13 of 2005 has been filed by the wife and children, who were petitioners there. The Civil Proceeding was filed by the wife and children with a prayer for maintenance and recovery of dower dues, besides direction for return of cash and ornaments.

7. Mr. Ghose, learned Counsel for the wife, submits that the Court below fell into error in not considering the wife's claim for arrear maintenance from 01.08.1990 to 06.01.1992 and rejecting the claim for recovery of dower and dowry articles or price thereof.

8. In the instant case, the Muslim wife filed an application for maintenance for herself and for her children. The husband in his written statement pleaded that he had divorced her on 31.12.1991. In his deposition, he stated that he gave her Talaq on 31.12.1991. Except this bald statement, no other evidence has been adduced by the husband to prove the factum of Talaq. Mr. Irshad argued that the moment the written statement was filed by the husband mentioning the above fact, it should be considered that Talaq was given from that date. It has been held by the apex Court in Shatnim Ara v. State of U.P. AIR 2002 SC 3551, that a mere plea taken in the written statement of a divorce having been pronounced sometime in the past cannot itself be treated as effectuating Talaq on the date of delivery of copy of the written statement to the wife. In the instant case, the husband ought to have adduced evidence and proved that the pronouncement of Talaq was made on 31.12.1991. The plea of previous divorce taken in the written statement cannot at all be treated as pronouncement of Talaq by the husband on wife on the date of filing of written statement. In the instant case, mere statement by the husband without proving anything cannot be accepted that Talaq had, in fact, taken place. The correct law of Talaq, as ordained by the Holy Quaran, is (i) that Talaq' must be for a reasonable cause; and (ii) that it must be preceded by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiters, one chosen by the wife and the other chosen by the husband. If their attempts fail, 'Talaq' may be effected. In the case at hand, nothing having been proved by the husband, neither the marriage between the parties stood dissolved on 31.12.1991 nor did the liability of the husband to pay maintenance come to an end on that day. The liability of the husband to maintain his wife and children or pay maintenance for them continues till the marriage subsists. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Irshad has no force.