
Case No: 465/1996
CITATION | 2002 Cr LJ4726 (SC) |
TYPE OF CASE | Criminal Appeal |
DATE OF JUDGMENT | 01-10-2002 |
COURT | Supreme Court Of India |
APPELLANT | Shamim Ara |
RESPONDENT | Respondent 1:- State Of U.P.Respondent 2:- Abrar Ahmad |
BENCH | R.C. Lahoti & P.Venkatarama Reddi. JJ |
INTRODUCTION
- As the case of Shamim Ara v. State of U.P., 2002 Cr LJ4726 (SC) is the case related to Muslim marriage in which the Supreme court examines the ways of talaq in Muslims.
- Also SC, interpreted the word “Pronouncement” and court also referred to the various research work of eminent jurists in this regard.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- Shamim Ara, the complainant and Abrar Ahmed, Respondent 2 were married in 1968 according to Muslim Shariat and Four sons were born out of the connubiality.
- On 12-4-1979, the complainant, on behalf of herself and for her two minor children, filed an operation under Section 125 CrPC complaining of dereliction and atrocity by the hubby. By order dated 3-4-1993 the learned Presiding Judge of the Family Court at Allahabad refused to grant any conservation to the complainant on the ground that she was formerly disassociated by the replier and hence not entitled to any conservation. Still, conservation at the rate of Rs. 150 per month was allowed for one son of the complainant for the period during which he remained a minor; the other one having become a major during the pendency of the proceedings. .
- when he appeared in the substantiation box, stated having disassociated the complainant on 11-7-1987 at 11a.m. in the presence of Mehboob and other 4- 5 persons of the neighbourhood. He further stated that since 1988 he hadn’t paid anything moreover to the complainant or to any of the four sons for their conservation. The divorce said to have been given by him to the complainant was a triple talaq though such a fact wasn’t stated in the written statement.
- The Family Court in its order dated 3-4-1993 dealt with and upheld a strange story of divorce completely beyond the case set up by Respondent 2. The learned Presiding Judge appertained to some affidavit dated 31-8-1988 said to have been filed by Replier 2 in some civil suit details whereof aren’t available from the record of the present case but clearly to which action the complainant wasn’t a party. The learned Judge concluded that the complainant wasn’t entitled to any conservation in view of her having been separated.
- The appellant preferred a modification before the High Court. The High Court held that the divorce which is contended to have been given by Respondent 2 to the complainant was not given in the presence of the complainant and it isn’t the case of the replier that the same was communicated to her. But the communication would stand completed on 5-12-1990 with the form of the written statement by Respondent 2 in the present case. Thus, the High Court concluded that the complainant was entitled to claim conservation from 1-1-1988 to 5-12-1990( the after date being the one on which reply to operation under Section 125 CrPC was filed by Respondent 2 in the Court) whereafter her annuity to have conservation from Respondent 2 shall check. The figure of conservation was appointed by the High Court at Rs 200.
- The complainant has filed this appeal by special leave in the Supreme Court.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether the Shamim can be said to have been divorced and the said divorce communicated to her so as to become effective from 5-12-1990?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT
- That the triple talaq divorce was invalid because it wasn’t pronounced in her presence and wasn’t communicated to her in a timely manner.
- That as the divorce not communicated to her then there was a still valid Marriage between shamim and Abrar Ahmed still exists.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
- That the triple talaq was a vaild and also an essential practice as mentioned in Muslims holy book and can’t be contrary to the rights of women.
- Respondent 2,Abrar Ahmad contented that he gave the divorce to Shamim in presence of many people and divorce was communicated to her.
JUDGEMENT
- In the ruling both judges weren’t agreed with the view of the named cases related to by Mulla and Dr Tahir Mahmood in their individual narrative, wherein a bare plea of former talaq taken in the written statement, though baseless, has been accepted as evidence of talaq bringing to an end the connubial relationship with effect from the date of form of the written statement as that time only pronouncement of divorce actually happened not ahead before. The term “pronouncement” means to annunciate, to maximum formally, to utter rhetorically, to declare, to utter, to articulate.
- With upheld the logic of the high court, this Court also says that there’s no evidence of talaq having taken place on 11-7-1987. A plea of former divorce taken in the written statement can not at each be treated as pronouncement of talaq by the hubby on the woman On the date of form of the written statement in the Court followed by delivery of a dupe thereof to the woman. So also the affidavit dated 31-8-1988, filed in some former judicial proceedings not inter parties, containing a tone- serving statement of Respondent 2, couldn’t have been read in substantiation as applicable and of any value.
- So Neither the marriage between the parties stand dissolved on 5-12-1990 nor did the liability of Respondent 2 to pay conservation come to an end on that day. Replier 2 shall continue to remain liable for payment of conservation until the obligation comes to an end in agreement with law. The costs of appeal shall be borne by hubby. The appeal is allowed by the honorable Court.
CONCLUSION
- The Shamim Ara case is a complex case that raises important issues about the corner of persuasion and gender par. The Supreme Court’s judgment to uphold the validity of triple talaq was polemical, but its resolution to fete the birthright of Muslim women to watch and feed was a positive process. The case is still a workable moment, as the debate over triple talaq continues in India.
REFERENCE
- https://issuu.com/devparnaacharya/docs/shamim-ara-sccase
- https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01900005488
This Article is Author by ROHIT ATTRI PUPIL OF KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA; Legal Research Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments