Salim Vs. Indira

Salim vs indira

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Jun 03, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758892

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/758892
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Ashok Parihar, J.
Decided On: Jun 03, 2004
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 1217 and 1218 of 2002
Subject: Family;Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Determination as to Juvenile - Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged oc...

Key legal issue: Family;Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Salim

Advocate Biri Singh, Adv.

Respondent

indira

Advocate D.V. Tholia, Adv.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Shamim Ara v. State of U.P.
Reported In: II(2004)DMC292; 2004(4)WLC217

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - in the present case, there is no proof of talak having taken place effectively......in their respective claim petitions.4. even otherwise, as per recent judgment of supreme court in the case of shamim ara v. state of u.p. & anr., reported in v (2002) slt 538=iv (2002) ccr 105 (sc)=2002 (7) scc 518, the talak to be effective has to be proved. in the present case, there is no proof of talak having taken place effectively. both the petitioners-brothers have written a document of talak at the same time and date as also the place exactly in the same language. a bare reading of the document as placed on record creates serious doubts on the bona fides of both the petitioners. moreso, when a bald averment in this regard in the written statement as also the statement made before the trial court has not been supported by any other cogent evidence. as per documents placed on record also does not establish that the marriage took place as per muslim rites as asserted by the petitioners.5. since after due appreciation of evidence, proper discretion has been used by the family court, in the facts and circumstances, i find no ground for any further interference of this court. both the petitions are dismissed accordingly as having no merit. the record of the family court be sent back immediately.

Full Judgment

Ashok Parihar, J.

1. Since on similar set of facts, same relief has been claimed in both the petitions, on joint request of Counsel for the parties both the petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2002 passed by the Family Court, Jaipur by which respondent wives have been allowed Rs. 1,500/-per month as maintenance in their respective claims.

3. It is a strange case of two real brothers who have married two real sisters on the same day. They have also alleged to have divorced their respective wives on the same day, time and place exactly in the same manner. As per the averments made by the wives before the Family Court, the marriage taken place as per Hindu rites which has been controverted by the petitioners asserting their marriage having took place as per Muslim rites. The Family Court, on the basis of evidence on record, came to a finding that the marriage had taken place as per Hindu rites and allowed the maintenance to ,the respondent wives accordingly in their respective claim petitions.

4. Even otherwise, as per recent judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in V (2002) SLT 538=IV (2002) CCR 105 (SC)=2002 (7) SCC 518, the Talak to be effective has to be proved. In the present case, there is no proof of Talak having taken place effectively. Both the petitioners-brothers have written a document of TALAK at the same time and date as also the place exactly in the same language. A bare reading of the document as placed on record creates serious doubts on the bona fides of both the petitioners. Moreso, when a bald averment in this regard in the written statement as also the statement made before the Trial Court has not been supported by any other cogent evidence. As per documents placed on record also does not establish that the marriage took place as per Muslim rites as asserted by the petitioners.

5. Since after due appreciation of evidence, proper discretion has been used by the Family Court, in the facts and circumstances, I find no ground for any further interference of this Court. Both the petitions are dismissed accordingly as having no merit. The record of the Family Court be sent back immediately.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2004 Same Parties Salim vs indira Same Subject Family;Criminal Same Judge Ashok Parihar, J.

Family;Criminal