Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Motiar Rahaman vs Sabina Khatun And Anr. on 26 November, 1993

Saleem Basha vs Mrs. Mumtaz Begam on 22 April, 1998

24. It follows from the above decisions that under the Quoran the marriage status is to be maintained as far as possible and there should be conciliation before divorce, and, therefore, the Quoran discourages divorce and it permits only after pre-divorce conference. 1 am also in agreement with the principles laid down in the above decisions and take the view that the divorce must be preceded among Muslims by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and wife by two mediators - one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his side. In the above view of the matter a Mohomedan husband cannot divorce his wife at his whim or caprice i.e., divorce must be for a reasonable cause and it must be preceded by a pre-divorce conference to arrive at a settlement. Even if there is any reasonable cause for the divorce, yet there must be evidence to show that there was an attempt for a settlement prior to the divorce and when there was no such attempt prior to divorce to arrive at a settlement by mediators, then there cannot be a valid divorce under Mohomedan Law.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Kunhimohammed vs Ayishakutty on 17 March, 2010

(e) x x x x x x and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed." We need only mention that our attention has been drawn to two decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Motiar Rahaman v. Sabina Khatun and another (II (1994) DMC 57) and S.K. Abubakkar v. Mst. Ohidunneessa Bibi (1992 (I) C.H.N. 538). Inasmuch as we hold that there is no extinguishment of the right under Sec.125 of the Code it is unnecessary to go into that question again in any greater detail.
Kerala High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kousher Ali Laskar vs Moslema Bibi And Anr. on 24 March, 2000

This decision of the Division Bench of this Court was also echoed by a Single Bench of this Court in the case Motiar Rahman v. Sabiha Khatun and Anr., as reported in 1994 C Cr.LR (Cal.) 48=II (1994) DMC 57=II (1994) CCR 1260. It appears that in the instant case the opposite party-wife gets an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code initially on 12.7.1996 vide order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia in Misc. Case No. 101/95. Thereupon the husband moved the said Court by filing an application under Section 127 of the Code for variation/charge/alteration of the initial order on the ground that he has divorced his wife subsequently by executing a Talaknama on 10.8.1996. It appears that in the said proceeding under Section 127 of the Code, learned Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia considered the evidence adduced by both the parties and also the Talaknama filed by the husband and came to the conclusion that the divorce having been proved and communicated on 29.4.1997, the wife will be entitled to get maintenance from the date of initial order, viz. with effect from 12.7.1996 to the date of communication of the divorce, viz. upto 29.4.1997. Thereafter the wife moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Criminal Motion No. 1/ 98 and obtained an order on 14.9.1998 whereby the said Court set aside the subsequent order of the learned Judicial Magistrate passed on 23.9.1997 in Misc. Petition No. 3/ 96 under Section 127 of the Code. Upon a consideration of all material as available on record including the Talaknama executed on 10.8.1996 by the husband before the Chief Imam of Uluberia Jamma Masjid, one cannot but come to the reasonable conclusion that the factum of divorce of the wife by the husband has been duly proved in accordance with the provisions of Mohammedan Law and also the provisions contained in Section 2(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the proceeding under Section 127 of the Code is inapplicable in this case. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Howrah dated 14.9.1998 in Criminal Motion No. 1/ 98 is, therefore, liable to be set aside and that the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah, passed in Misc. Petition No. 3/96 on 23.9.1997 should be restored there being no irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the said order dated 23.9.1997.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saleem Basha vs Mumtaz Begum on 22 April, 1998

25. It follows from the above decisions that under the Quran the marriage status is to be maintained as far as possible, and there should be conciliation before divorce, and, therefore, the Quran discourages divorce, and it permits only after pre-divorce conference. I am also in agreement with the principles laid down in the above decisions and take the view that the divorce must be preceded among Muslims by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and wife by two mediators - one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his side. In the above view of the matter a Mohammedan husband cannot divorce his wife at his whim or caprice i.e., divorce must be for a reasonable cause and it must be preceded by a pre-divorce conference to arrive at a settlement. Even if there is any reasonable cause for the divorce, yet there must be evidence to show that there was an attempt for a settlement prior to the divorce and when there was no such attempt prior to divorce to arrive at a settlement by mediators, then there cannot be a valid divorce under Mohammedan Law.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1