Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.44 seconds)
Mangila Bibi vs Noor Hossain And Another on 13 March, 1991 cites

Mst. Zohara Khatoon vs Mohd. Ibrahim on 18 February, 1981

5. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the opposite party has, however, heavily relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mst. Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd. Ibrahim, in which it was observed that under the Mahomedan Law, there are three distinct modes for dissolving a marriage one of which was by viture of an agreement either before or after the marriage by which it was provided that the wife should be at liberty to divorce herself in specified contingencies provided such contingencies were of a reasonable nature and were agreed to by the husband. In that case, Zohra Khatoon obtained a decree for dissolution of marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, on ground of cruelty and wilful neglect and subsequently made an application before a competent Magistrate under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contending that although divorced, she could still claim maintenance, looking to the enlarge meaning of "wife" as given in Cl. (b) of the Explanation to S. 125(1) of the Code. The ex-husband Mohd. Ibrahim took the plea that the applicant Zohara Khatoon was not entitled to claim maintenance as she had ceased to be his wife. The Magistrate found against the ex-husband and a suitable order was made in favour of Zohara Khatoon, which was also upheld by the Sessions Judge in revision. Mohd. Ibrahim thereafter moved the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under S. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure which held that Cl. (b) of the Explanation to S. 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would apply only if the divorce proceed ed from the husband and not in a case where the dissolution of marriage was brought about by the wife under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, and as such Zohara Khatoon was not entitled to get any maintenance for herself. There was an appeal to the Supreme Court which was thus seized with the question whether Cl. (b) of the Explanation to S. 125(1), Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted in a case where the marriage was dissolved at the instance of the wife under the said Act and not with the question whether a husband could delegate to his wife the power to divorce herself unconditionally or without the happening of any contingency. Therefore, this decision does not appeal to be an authority for the proposition that there cannot be any unconditional delegation of the power to divorce.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 32 - S M Ali - Full Document
1