Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)M.M. Abdul Khader vs Azeeza Bee on 15 October, 1943
Mrs. Moitra referred to two -cases, namely, Areekkal Abdurahiman Musliyar Rahim v. Neliyaparambath Ayissu, and the case of M. M, Abdul Khader v. Azeeza Bee, reported in (1944) 1 Mad LJ 17 : (1944) 45 Cri LJ 672 and contends that a Talak is not effective as against the wife if it is given in her absence till it is communicated to her and that she is entitled to maintenance upto the date of her knowledge of the Talak. These cases, in my opinion, do not come to any aid of the opposite party. It does not appear from the facts of any of the two cases that date of effect of Talaknama in writing fell for consideration of the court or that it was held that the Talaknama when executed in writing would be effective as against the wife, if it is given in her absence, only on communication to her.
Chandbi Ex vs Bandesha on 27 June, 1960
6. Mrs. Moitra contends further that the trying Magistrate having come to the conclusion that the Talak was not given, after discussion of the evidence, his finding in that respect cannot be disturbed in this revisional application. The learned Magistrate has, however, fallen into error in going into the question as to whether or not Talak was given as stated in the document, Ext. A when it was not disputed that the husband executed that document, Ext. A, The personal law of a Muslim favours a husband and permits him to divorce his wife either orally or in writing. The validity or otherwise of the Talaknama, on discussion of the oral evidence on the point, does not arise when execution of talaknama is not disputed. The question which the learned Magistrate should have considered was whether or not Talaknama was executed by the husband. When that had been proved and in this case not challenged, the learned Magistrate should not have further gone into that question and should have held that there was a Talaknama. It is pertinent here to refer to the observations of Shah, J., as His Lordship then was in the case of Chandbi v. Bandesha, which are as follows:
Sarabai vs Rabiabai on 9 December, 1905
5. It is thus clear that the wife came to know of the divorce at least on 20-6-1970. But her claim for maintenance for the period from 22-12-1969 to 20-6-1970 cannot be allowed as I have already pointed out that the Talak in this case was given by a document in writing which was executed long before 22-12-1969 in an irrevocable manner addressed to the wife herself. The Talaknama is in a customary form as it is in the form of a declaration addressed to the wife and is manifest. It can be easily read and comprehended and the intention to divorce is clear from the declaration. This is the view expressed in the case of Mustt. Sarabai v. Rabiabai, reported in (1905) ILR 30 Bom 537. I am in respectful agreement with that view.
Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 435 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Areekkal Abdurahiman Musaliyar vs Neliyaparambath Ayissu on 30 October, 1961
Mrs. Moitra referred to two -cases, namely, Areekkal Abdurahiman Musliyar Rahim v. Neliyaparambath Ayissu, and the case of M. M, Abdul Khader v. Azeeza Bee, reported in (1944) 1 Mad LJ 17 : (1944) 45 Cri LJ 672 and contends that a Talak is not effective as against the wife if it is given in her absence till it is communicated to her and that she is entitled to maintenance upto the date of her knowledge of the Talak. These cases, in my opinion, do not come to any aid of the opposite party. It does not appear from the facts of any of the two cases that date of effect of Talaknama in writing fell for consideration of the court or that it was held that the Talaknama when executed in writing would be effective as against the wife, if it is given in her absence, only on communication to her.
1