Dismissed

Syed Hussain Agha, v. Syeda Ruquiya Fatima

Telangana HC23 Apr 2012CRLP/4453/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 for return of dowry. It held the petition maintainable as in-laws are not exempt from returning property, though maintenance remains the husband's liability.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed; trial to proceed; petitioners to file application for dispensation of personal presence.

Syed Hussain Agha, Vs Syeda Ruquiya Fatima — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4453 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.87 of 2009 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which are initiated under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short, the Act).

¶5

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶6

3. Inspite of giving opportunity to the 1^st respondent, none appears for her. Hence, the criminal petition is disposed of basing on the material available on record.

¶7

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that under the Act, the only husband is liable to pay maintenance or mehr or dower amount and also deliver all the properties referred to in Clause1(d) of sub-section(1) of the Act to the divorced woman, and therefore, the petitioners/in-laws are not bound to pay any maintenance to the 1^st respondent and hence the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of court.

¶8

5. Section 3(2) of the Act reads as follows:

¶9

“(2) Where a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance or the amount of mahr or dower due has not been made or paid or the properties referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) have not been delivered to a divorced woman on her divorce, she or any one duly authorised by her may, on her behalf, make an application to a Magistrate for an order for payment of such provision and maintenance, mahr or dower or the delivery of properties, as the case may be.”

¶10

6. Section 3(3) of the Act also reads as follows:

¶11

“(3) Where an application has been made under subsection (2) by a divorced woman, the Magistrate may, if he is satisfied that-

¶12

(a) her husband having sufficient means, has failed or neglected to make or pay her within the iddat period a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance for her and the children, or

¶13

(b) the amount equal to the sum of mahr or dower has not been paid or that the properties referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) have not been delivered to her, make an order, within one moth of the date of the filing of the application, directing her former husband to pay such reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to the divorced woman as he may determine as fit and proper having regard to the needs of the divorced woman, the standard of life enjoyed by her during her marriage and the means of her former husband or as the case may be, for the payment of such mahr or dower or the delivery of such properties referred to in clause (d) of subsection (1) to the divorced woman:

¶14

Provided that if the Magistrate finds it impracticable to dispose of the application within the said period, he may, for reasons to be recorded by him, dispose of the

¶15

application after the said period.”

¶16

So, from the above provisions, it is clear that Section 3 of the Act entitles the divorced Muslim Woman to claim maintenance from her former husband, but not from in-laws.

¶17

7. As per Section 1(4) of the Act, a divorced woman shall be entitled to all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after her marriage by her relatives or friends or husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends.

¶18

8. So, if certain properties are given at the time of marriage to the 1^st respondent, if they are in the custody of the petitioners, they are bound to deliver the same under Section 3(1) of the Act. From the Act itself it is clear that so far as the maintenance is concerned, it is the former husband who has to pay the maintenance and in respect of delivery of the properties referred to in Section 1(d) of the Act, the same have to be returned by the husband or in-laws who have allegedly taken those articles.

¶19

9. Therefore, in view of the fact that the claim in the M.C by the 1^st respondent is with regard to return of the cash dowry, electronic items and the articles, the petition is perfectly maintainable. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings. However, this aspect is left open for the trial court to decide in accordance with law after adducing the necessary evidence by both parties.

¶20

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

¶21

considering the age of the petitioners, their presence may be dispensed with before the trial court. For the said purpose, the petitioners have to file an application seeking to dispense with their presence before the trial court, and on filing of such application, the trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶22

11. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶23

_______________ K.C. BHANU,J

¶24

Date:23.04.2012. GK

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4453 of 2010

¶27

Date: 23.04.2012

¶28

Syed Hussain Agha, v. Syeda Ruquiya Fatima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Hussain Agha, v. Syeda Ruquiya Fatima

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

A. Reddeppa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ravula Kumar Goud, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Panjala Lachamma , Laxmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R.Satyamurthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pala Venkateswar Rao , Kalyan , Venkateswar Rao Vs The State of A.P.

Medasani Dharmendra Babu Vs The Station House Officer