Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)

Sheikh Mohammad Shafi vs Mehmooda on 6 November, 2017

20) In the instant case, the document dated 10.01.2019, has come into existence only after the filing of petition by respondent No.1 before the learned trial Magistrate. The petition was filed by respondent No.1 on 12 11.12.2018 whereas the document, on the basis of which the petitioner claims to have divorced respondent No.1, has come into existence only on 10.01.2019 i.e., well after the institution of the petition. Besides this, the very communication of the divorce to respondent No.1 is in dispute in the instant case and there is nothing on record to even prima facie show that the Talaq Nama has been conveyed to respondent No.1. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - M K Hanjura - Full Document

Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002

"36. The Supreme Court made it clear in Shamim Ara (supra) that a talaq, to be effective, has to be pronounced. The manner of pronouncement of oral talaq also brings in differences in hanafi and ithna ashari schools. For one, the latter requires the presence of two competent witnesses, while the former does not. Then there is the issue of communication. A talaq may be pronounced in the absence of the wife. But, does it not need to be communicated to her? As discussed above, pronouncement of talaq materially alters the status of the wife. Her rights and liabilities flow from the nature of the talaq. Is it a revocable talaq or is it an irrevocable talaq? Then there is the question of iddat. Her right to residence. Her right to maintenance. Her right to mahr (if deferred). Custody of children, if any. Her right of pledging her husband's credit for obtaining the means of subsistence. How would she know that it is time for her to exercise these rights (or time for her not to exercise them, as in the case of pledging her husband's credit) if she does not even know that her husband has pronounced talaq? So, linked with the question of her rights is the issue of communication of the talaq to her? Furthermore, as pointed out above, the iddat period, in the case of a revocable talaq, is also a period during which the husband and wife have a re-think and attempt reconciliation. How would this be possible if the husband pronounces talaq secretly and does not at allinform the wife about it? Consequently, while it may not beessential that the talaq has to be pronounced in the presence of the wife, it is essential that suchpronouncement, to be effective, is made know to her, communicated to her, at the 8 earliest. Otherwise she would be deprived of her rights post talaq and pre-dissolution. What is the earliest will depend on the facts andcircumstances of each case and would necessarily be a function of the access to communication that the husband and wife have. In the modern day, where every nook and cranny has landline or cellular coverage, in almost every case it would mean the same day.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 139 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Shayara Bano vs Union Of India And Ors. Ministry Of Women ... on 22 August, 2017

15) From the analysis of the law laid down in the foregoing judgments, it is clear that for a Muslim husband to avoid his liability to maintain his wife on the ground that he has divorced his wife, has not only to show that the divorce is validly pronounced in accordance with Muslim law but he has also to show that the said divorce has been communicated to the wife.
Supreme Court of India Cites 225 - Cited by 2604 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Bashir Ahmad Mir vs Mst. Batool on 16 March, 2021

6) learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner while arguing that respondent No.1, having been divorced by the petitioner in terms of communication dated 10.01.2019 issued by Anjuman Sharie Shiaan J&K, is not entitled to any maintenance from the petitioner, has relied upon the ratio laid down by this Court in the judgments delivered in the case of Bashir Ahmad vs. Mst.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - S Dhar - Full Document

Jamurad Begum vs Nazar Hussain And Another on 30 December, 2020

In my aforesaid view I am supported by the judgments of this Court in the case of Mushtaq Ahmad 13 Badyari vs. Ruquya Akhter (CRMC No.412/2018 decideed on 12.11.2020) and Jamurad Begum vs. Nazar Hussain and another (CRM(M) No.357/2020 decided on 30.12.2020). It is pertinent to mention here that the ratio laid down by this Court in Jamurad Begum's case has been upheld by the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition against the said judgment has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in terms of order dated 02.02.2022 passed in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.252/2022.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - S Dhar - Full Document
1