Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.04 seconds)
Documents citing Karim Abdul Rehman Shaikh vs Shehnaz Karim Shaikh & Others on 11 July, 2000

Wajed Khan vs Mohasinabi And Anr. on 16 March, 2001

8. Once we come to the conclusion that talaqnama is valid, the divorced Muslim wife is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125, Chapter IX, Criminal Procedure Code. The law is no longer res Integra on this issue and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Karim AR Shaikh v. Shehnaz Karim Shaikh (supra), has categorically answered the reference by laying down that after the commencement of the said Act, Muslim divorced wife cannot apply for maintenance under the provisions of Chapter IX of Criminal Procedure Code and it is only under Section 5 of the said Act that by agreement husband and divorced wife can approach Magistrate under Chapter IX, Cr.P.C. The entitle scheme of the said Act has been examined by the Full Bench for coming to the said conclusion. Therefore, from the date of talaq, the application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable. In the case under consideration, the application for maintenance was filed on 7.2.1991 and talaqnama was given on 17.7.1991 and till then the respondent No. 1 had not been divorced and as such her application which was filed on 7.2.1991 would be maintainable till the divorce was pronounced by talaqnama dated 17.7.1991. The Magistrate after having come to the conclusion in his judgment dated 5.4.1994 that in the circumstances, it is difficult to hold that non-applicant, namely the respondent No. 1 before had ill-treated the applicant. However, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the respondent, namely the present applicant had refused and neglected to maintain the applicants. There findings on refusal and neglected to maintain have not been disturbed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and these findings being of fact, cannot be interfered in an application under Section, 182, Cr.P.C. In view of the same, the respondent No. 2 would be, entitled to maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month till the date of talaqnama that is to say 17.7.1991 from the date of application, namely 7.2.1991.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R K Batta - Full Document

Rehana Sultana Begum Hashmi Syed Mujib & ... vs Hashmi Syed Mujib Hashmi Syed Yakub on 11 August, 2016

In Arab Ahemadhia Abdulla and etc vs. Arab Bail Mohmuna Saiyadbhai & Ors. etc., AIR 1988 (Guj.) 141; Ali vs. Sufaira, (1988) 3 Crimes 147; K. Kunhashed Hazi v. Amena, 1995 Crl.L.J. 3371; K. Zunaideen v. Ameena Begum, (1998] II DMC 468; Karim Abdul Shaik v. Shenaz Karim Shaik, 2000 Cr.L.J. 3560 and Jaitunbi Mubarak Shaikh v. Mubarak Fakruddin Shaikh & Anr., 1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 694, while interpreting the provision of Sections ::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2016 00:32:51 ::: 544.03crwp 21 3(1)(a) and 4 of the Act, it is held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to a fair and reasonable provision for her future being made by her former husband which must include maintenance for future extending beyond the iddat period. It was held that the liability of the former husband to make a reasonable and fair provision under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act is not restricted only for the period of iddat but that divorced Muslim woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision for her future being made by her former husband and also to maintenance being paid to her for the iddat period. A lot of emphasis was laid on the words made and paid and were construed to mean not only to make provision for the iddat period but also to make a reasonable and fair provision for her future.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - N W Sambre - Full Document

Naseemunisa Begum D/O Shaikh Yasin And ... vs Shaikh Abdul Rehman S/O Shaikh Gaffar ... on 13 March, 2001

9. We do not agree with this argument of the learned Counsel, first, because the decision given by the Full Bench is always binding on the smaller Benches. It will not be proper for a smaller Bench to go into the question whether the Full Bench was called upon to decide those issues. In this matter, the decision given by the Full Bench also cannot be called as obiter dicta, because all relevant questions had to be considered before giving a decision on the point referred to the Full Bench. On going through the entire judgment of the Full Bench, it will be clear that the matters which are decided by the Full Bench were all relevant for the decision of the point, which was referred to the Full Bench.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - A P Deshpande - Full Document

Rana Nahid @ Reshma @ Sana vs Sahidul Haq Chisti on 18 June, 2020

23. In the present case, we are concerned with the question whether the application under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1986 can be filed before the Family Court or whether the Family Court can convert the petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to one under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act of 1986. I fully agree 18 with the view taken by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Karim Abdul Rehman Sheikh case. Since the Muslim Women’s Protection Act, 1986 does not refer to the Family Court or does not say that an application under Sections 3 and 4 can be filed before the Family Court, in my view, the Family Court cannot entertain the application of divorced Muslim woman under Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women’s Protection Act, 1986.
Supreme Court of India Cites 75 - Cited by 8 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Farhan Haji Gafar Gudda vs Rijwanaben Usmanbhai Patel & on 8 March, 2013

35. In Arab Ahemadhia Abdulla and etc vs. Arab Bail Mohmuna Saiyadbhai & Ors. etc., AIR 1988 (Guj.) 141; Ali vs. Sufaira, (1988) 3 Crimes 147; K. Kunhashed Hazi v. Amena, 1995 Crl.L.J. 3371; K. Zunaideen v. Ameena Begum, (1998] II DMC 468; Karim Abdul Shaik v. Shenaz Karim Shaik, 2000 Cr.L.J. 3560 and Jaitunbi Mubarak Shaikh v. Mubarak Fakruddin Shaikh & Anr., 1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 694, while interpreting the provision of Sections 3(1)(a) and 4 of the Act, it is held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to a fair and reasonable provision for her future being made by her former husband which must include maintenance for future extending beyond the iddat period. It was held that the liability of the former husband to make a reasonable and fair provision under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act is not restricted only for the period of iddat but that divorced Muslim woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision for her future being made by her former husband and also to maintenance being paid to her for the iddat period. A lot of emphasis was laid on the words made and paid and were construed to mean not only to make provision for the iddat period but also to make a reasonable and fair provision for her future.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - K M Thaker - Full Document

Mukhtar Shaikh Aref Shaikh vs Dr Sameena Shahin Salim Shaikh And Anr on 15 March, 2023

7. The full bench of this Court, in the above case, has laid down the procedure for a valid divorce by a Muslim husband. The husband claimed that he had served his wife a written talaqnama, which is legal and valid. Testing his evidence on the anvil of the requirement of a valid divorce, the Court is of the view that he failed to prove that he gave a valid talaq to his wife. The validity of talaq was raised before the Family Court. It goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the family. Provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social justice legislation. A distinct approach has to be adopted while dealing with such applications. The said section has imposed certain conditions to get the maintenance. If the wife claims maintenance under the said section, she must be a legally wedded wife or a wife on the date of filing the application. Unless she is disqualified, she is entitled to maintenance. Hence, the learned Judge, Family Court, appears to have correctly examined the validity of the alleged talaqnama and correctly concluded that it was not legal and valid. The reasons for invoking or having jurisdiction to entertain such an application also appear correct and legally acceptable. The Court agreed with the view taken by the Family Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S G Mehare - Full Document

Mohammed Rafiq Gulam Yusuf Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat on 18 December, 2001

However, the learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the matter of Karim Abdul Rehman Shaikh v. Shehnaz Karim Shaikh & Ors. [2000 Cr.L.J 3560]. The said Court has taken a view that after the commencement of the Act, a muslim divorced wife cannot apply for maintenance under the provisions of Chapter IX of the Code. In view of the above referred judgment of the Bombay High Court, I am of the view that the question requires consideration by the larger Bench. The registry is directed to post this Revision Application for admission hearing before the Larger Bench. The petitioner is directed to supply additional set of paper-book within one week from today.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1