Husband's appeal against dismissal of his suit seeking declaration that his talaq was valid. The High Court held the pronouncement lacked written intimation to the wife as mandated by Muslim personal law, upheld the Family Court's decree and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
A.S(MD)No.129 of 2014
M.S.Mohamed Younus ... Appellant/Plaintiff
.Vs.
S.Usmin ... Respondent/Defendant
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to set aside the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.22 of 2012, dated 12.11.2013, on the file of Family Judge, Madurai with costs for allowing this appeal with costs throughout.
For Appellant : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.J.Barathan
1/6
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
This appeal suit is directed against the dismissal of O.S.No.22 of 2012 by the Family Court, Madurai.
2.The suit is laid by the appellant herein, who is the husband of the respondent to declare the talaq pronounced by him on 24.03.2012 as valid and consequently, certificate given by the Government Kazi of Salem to be upheld.
3.However, the suit for declaration was contested by the respondent/wife stating that the allegations made against her as a cause for pronouncement of Talaq is false and the Certificate given by the Government Kazi, Salem, dated 17.3.2014 as invalid and no exchange of jewels in the presence of Government Kazi, Salem took place and therefore, the alleged proceedings in the Shariat Court is non-est in the eye of law. Since there was dowry harassment and ill treatment, she was forced to give complaint. The alleged pronounement of Talaq is not in consonance with the personal law.The pronouncement of Talaq ought to have 2/6
been informed to the Government Kazi, but not done so as per the procedure.
4.Considering the pleadings, the trial Court framed issues as to whether
the relief of declaration that the pronouncement of Talaq is valid and binding on the respondent.?
5.After examining the witnesses and considering the exhibits Ex.A1 to ExA24 and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has complied with all the requirements of Islamic law before pronouncement of Talaq and therefore, he is not entitled for the declaratory relief as sought for. There is no reprsentation for the appellant.
6.No representation for the appellant. Counsel for the respondent present.
7.The learned counsel for the respondent reports that from his instructing
counsel, he came to know that the parties have arrived at a settlement and not interested in pursuing the appeal. Be that as it may, the order of the lower Court indicates that the parties were at logger-heads and therefore, complaints and
3/6
petitions were given against each other to the local Jamath. The alleged pronoucement of Talaq by the plaintiff was not in consonance with the procedure laid in Muslim law.
8.Though the plaintiff has pleaded that he had informed the defendant in writing about the pronouncement of Talaq, there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the said written intimation regarding pronouncement of talaq. The trial Court has declined to take judicial notice of the observation made in the bail order to infer that the defendant was put on notice about the pronouncement of Talaq.This Court finds that the reasoning given by the Court below is legally sustainable, since the personal Law of Muslims mandates the husband to inform about the pronouncement of Talaq to his wife in writing. There cannot be any other form of intimating the information. Therefore this Court uphold the judgment of the trial Court and dismiss the appeal.
9.In view of the above, the Appeal Suit in A.S(MD)No.129 of 2014 stands
dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
[G.J.,J.] [C.K.,J.] 08.02.2024
4/6
NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn To
1.The Judge, Family Court, Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN A.S(MD)No.129 of 2014
08.02.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the talaq pronounced by the husband on 24.03.2012 was valid under Muslim personal law and binding on the wife.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.S.Mohamed Younus
S.Usmin
G.Jayachandran
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
