Dismissed

Shejina v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jun 2012WP(C)/18026/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner wife challenged polygamy practices alleging husband's remarriage without dissolution of first marriage. Court dismissed writ petition as infructuous due to subsequent marriage, granting liberty to raise larger constitutional/public interest question in appropriate proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to raise larger question in appropriate proceeding.

Shejina Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/15TH JYAISHTA 1934 WP(C).No. 18026 of 2009 (R) --------------------------OP.545/2009 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR

¶3

PETITIONER:

¶4

SHEJINA. W/O. SHEFEER, PUZHAGARA ILLATH HOUSE, KANDANSSERY DESOM THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.RAFEEK V.K.

¶5

RESPONDENTS:

¶6

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT.

¶7

KERALA WAKF BOARD, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

THYCAUD JUMA ATH COMMITTEE, THYCAUD, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

ERUMAPETTY JUMA ATH COMMITTEE, ERUMAPETTY, VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. SHEFEER, S/O. KHADER, PUZHAGAARA ILLATH HOUSE, THYCAUD AMSOM, DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, R. PADMARAJ

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

W.P.(C) 18026 OF 2009

¶12

APPENDIX

¶13

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶14

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P.545/09 FILED BY THE PETITIONER

¶15

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 8.6.2009.

¶16

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶17

// TRUE COPY //

¶18

PA TO JUDGE

¶19

K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ.,

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.18026 of 2009 R

¶21

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶22

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2012

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

K.T. Sankaran J.,

¶25

The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:

¶26

“(i) declare that the practice of Islamic law by way of permitting a Muslim male to have four wives at the same time without fulfilling the various conditions insisted by Islamic law, is illegal and unconstitutional.

¶27

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing respondents 1 and 2 to take effective steps to give directions to all the Juma Aths in the State of Kerala to ensure that a Muslim man is allowed to have more than one wife at a time only after fulfilling the necessary conditions for the same insisted by Islamic law.

¶28

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 3^rd respondent Juma Ath not to solemnise the second marriage of the 5^th respondent without fulfilling the essential conditions for such marriage

¶29

:2:

¶30

W.P.(C) No.18026 of 2009

¶31

insisted by Islamic personal law.

¶32

(iv) and to issue such other reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.”

¶33

The petitioner is the wife of respondent no.5. It is alleged

¶34

in the Writ Petition that respondent no.5 had made all preparations to marry one Bushra without dissolving the marriage with the petitioner. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner had filed O.P. No.545 of 2009 before the Family Court, Thrissur for an injunction restraining respondent no.5 from forcibly removing her from the house. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.P. No.545 of 2009 is still pending. The counsel also submitted that subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, respondent no.5 married another woman and therefore, on facts, the relief no.3 in the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶36

Writ Petition may be dismissed as infructuous, leaving open the larger question raised in the Writ Petition and permitting the petitioner to raise the same in a public interest litigation.

¶37

W.P.(C) No.18026 of 2009

¶38

:3:

¶39

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to

¶40

the petitioner, to raise the larger question raised in the Writ Petition, to be agitated by the petitioner, in an appropriate proceeding, before an appropriate forum.

¶41

K.T. SANKARAN, (JUDGE)

¶42

M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)

¶43

dl/

Shejina v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shejina v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pokkalathkandy P.Gopinathan Vs Kammalatt Baby

Moidutty Vs Rahmath

Moidutty Vs Rahmath and Others

Sasikala Vs Anil Kumar

Ratheesh Vs Harsha

Nafeesa Vs the Superintendent of Police