Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002
5. Relying on the above said view expressed by the highest forum of this
land, both the Courts below have held that the appellant/plaintiff had not
proved that there was an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and wife
by two arbiters chosen as aforesaid, preceding the alleged pronouncement of
'talaq'. Hence the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the alleged
pronouncement of 'talaq' was ineffective and invalid. The learned counsel for
the appellant contended that the said observations made by in Shamim Ara's case
was only obiter dicta and hence, the same could not be taken as a binding
precedent. In support of the said contention the learned counsel for the
appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Divisional
Controller, KSRTC Vs.Mahadeva Shetty and another reported in (2004 2 L.W 60) and
a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in The Secretary,
Saliar Mahajana Higher Secondary Schools Vs.G.Subburaj & others reported in
(2005 1 L.W 48). In (2004 2.L.W 60) cited supra, the following were the
observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court
"while applying the decision to a later case, the court dealing with
it should carefully try to ascertain the principle laid down by the previous
decision. A decision often takes its colour from the question involved in the
case in which it is rendered. The scope and authority of a precedent should
never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. The only
thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon
which the case was decided. Statements which are not part of the ratio
decidendi are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not authoritative. The task
of finding the principle is fraught with difficulty as without an investigation
into the facts, it cannot be assumed whether a similar direction must or ought
to be made as a measure of social justice. Precedents sub silentio and without
argument are of no moment. Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all, nor
every passing expression of a Judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex
cathedra statement having the weight of authority."