Zainaba vs T.A.Abdul Rasheed on 11 September, 2012
In the decision reported in Veeran Sayvu
Ravuthar v. Beevathumma (2002(2) KLT 741), it was held in
paragraph 19 as follows :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (1.25 seconds)Documents citing
Veeran Sayvu Ravuthar vs Beevathumma on 27 March, 2002
M.K.Seenath vs N.Abdul Hameed 49 Years on 1 January, 2004
3.Reading of the judgment shows that the only ground
relied on by the Family Court for dismissing the OP
filed by the wife for dissolution of her marriage
with the respondent is that by Ext.B1 order in
MC.279/98, it has already rejected the claim of the
appellant for maintenance on the ground that she was
residing away from the husband without any valid
reason. The question is whether the residence of the
wife away from the respondent without any valid
reason, which is a ground provided under section 125
of the Cr.PC for declining the claim for maintenance
by the wife, can be a ground to decline dissolution
Mat.A.104/05
3
of marriage sought for by the wife relying on section
2(ii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act.
The answer to this question has to be in the negative
and this issue has already been decided in favour of
the wife by virtue of the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in Veeran Sayvu Ravuthar v.
Beevathumma [2002 (2) KLT 741], where, it has been
held thus in paragraph 19:
K. Abdul Rahiman vs Panthapilackal Shereefa on 29 October, 2008
wife, without any reasonable cause, has been living separately from the
husband and hence ground under Section 2(ii) is not available, we could not
appreciate the said argument in the light of the decision of this Court in
Veeran Sayvu Ravuthar's case (2002(2) KLT 741) that the restriction as
contained in Section 2(iv) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act is
conspicuously absent in Section 2(ii) of the Act. In other words, though a
wife may not be entitled to get a divorce under Section 2(iv) unless it is
further proved that the failure to perform the marital obligation is without
any reason, it is not necessary to get a divorce under Section 2(ii), and the
husband cannot take a plea of defence that the non maintenance is for any
reasonable cause. In other words, whether any reasonable cause exists or
not is irrelevant and it is sufficient the husband is not maintaining the wife,
to attract Section 2(ii). In this background, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the order passed by the court below.
1