Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (1.43 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

Britannia Industries Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamagar Union on 16 April, 2009

2. While finding it difficult to follow the principles stated by the learned Judges on the construction and interpretation of section 25-O of the Act in the matter of review ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:31:11 ::: 4 and/or Reference, another Single Judge of this Court while referring to the provisions and scheme of the Act, decided to refer the matter for decision to a larger Bench. The respondents even raised an objection to the very maintainability of the present Reference. It is contended that in the light of the dictum of law stated by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Karim Abdul v. Shehnaz Karim (2005) 5 Bom.
Bombay High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 8 - S Kumar - Full Document

Danial Latifi & Anr vs Union Of India on 28 September, 2001

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 131 - 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

Mamtaz Bibi vs Basir Sheikh And The State Of West Bengal on 21 April, 2009

36. In Arab Ahemadhia Abdulla and etc vs. Arab Bail Mohmuna Saiyadbhai & Ors. Etc. MANU/GJ/0093/1988; AIR 1988 Guj 141, (1988) 1 GLR 452; Ali vs. Safaira, (1988) 3 Crimes 147; K. Kunhashed Hazi v. Amena, 1995 Cri.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) (1) 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 made 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.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Danial Latifi & Anr vs Union Of India on 28 September, 2001

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S R Babu - Full Document
1   2 3 Next