Allowed

Muhammed Rashik v. Palakkal Fasariya

Kerala HC4 Feb 2013Mat.Appeal/806/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a Family Court decree dissolving the marriage and ordering the return of cash and ornaments. The High Court held that illegally withholding a wife's property and preventing her enjoyment thereof amounts to matrimonial cruelty under Section 2(viii)(d) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Matrimonial Appeal dismissed. Decree for dissolution of marriage and return of cash/ornaments value stands confirmed.

Muhammed Rashik Vs Palakkal Fasariya — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/15TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

Mat.Appeal.No. 806 of 2009 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP.181/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM DATED 31-07-2009

¶7

APPELLANT(S)RESPONDENT:

¶8

MOHAMED RASHIK, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MARAKKARKUTTY, "KEYEM" RESIDENCY NEAR VISWAS THEATRE, P.O.B.P.ANGADI, TIRUR-676 102 MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶11

PALAKKAL FASARIYA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.KUNHU, PALAKKAL HOUSE, CHERIYAPARAPPOOR.P.O PERINTHALLOOR, TIRUR TALUK, PIN-676102

¶12

R, BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ

¶13

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

acd

¶15

PIUS.C. KURIAKOSE &

¶16

P.D. RAJAN, JJ.

¶17

Mat Appeal No.806 of 2009

¶18

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2013

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Pius.C. Kuriakose, J.

¶21

Under challenge in this Matrimonial Appeal preferred by the appellant, who is the respondent in O.P.No.181/2009, is the order of the Family Court, Malappuram allowing the O.P.filed by the respondent in this appeal for dissolution of the marriage between the parties under the provisions of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act. The evidence before the Family Court consisted of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 on the side of the respondent and that of RW1 and RW2 on the side of the appellant. The documents on the side of the respondent consisted of Exts.A1, A1(a) and A2. The documents on the side of the appellant consisted of Exts.B1 to B3 series. The court below concluded on appreciating the evidence that the appellant is guilty of matrimonial cruelty in terms of Section 2 (viii) (d) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act. The finding was that the cash and ornaments belonging to the respondent are illegally retained by the appellant. Under the

¶22

¶23

Mat. Appeal No.806/09

¶24

impugned common order, the court below passed a decree directing the appellant to return the cash and ornaments or, in lieu of the ornaments, the monetary value of the ornaments and order for maintenance was also passed. As rightly noticed by the Family Court under Section 2 (viii)(d) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, illegally retaining the property belonging to the wife and preventing the wife from enjoying such property itself is such a matrimonial cruelty. We come to understand that the appeal preferred by the appellant against the decree passed by the Family Court for return of ornaments and cash has attained finality. That appeal was dismissed. In such a situation, we are obliged to find that the cruelty as contemplated under Section 2 (viii) (d) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act has been established. The Mat. Appeal fails. It will stand dismissed.

¶25

Call on 11.2.2013. The appellant should be present before this court at 10.15 a.m. on 11.2.2013.

¶26

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶27

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶28

acd

¶29

Mat. Appeal No.806/09 3

¶30

Mat. Appeal No.806/09 4

Muhammed Rashik v. Palakkal Fasariya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Rashik v. Palakkal Fasariya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhila Vs Vinod

Moses Cyprian Vs State of Kerala

Sajithkumar G. Vs Ambili V.L.

Simimol.P.K. Vs Padmakumar.T.K.

Rajeev and Another Vs Ramya.K

Vipin Viswanath Vs District Police Chief Thiruvananthapuram