Babu @ Muhammed Vs. Fathima Suhra - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE24H DAY OF MARCH20143RD CHAITHRA, 1936 Mat.Appeal.No. 251 of 2014 () ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER

/JUDGMENT

IN OP8522013 of FAMILYCOURT, TIRUR DATED3001-2014 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------- BABU @ MUHAMMED AGED34YEARS S/O KARUVANNIL MAITHI, RESIDING AT KARUVANNIL HOUSE VENGARA, KUZHIPPURAM, IRINGALLUR P.O. MALAPPURAM-676 304. (VENGARA POLICE STATION LIMIT) BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- FATHIMATH SUHRA, AGED23YEARS D/O KOLLANCHERI ABDUL JALEEL, KOLLANCHERI HOUSE TIRURANGADI P.O., CHEMMAD MALAPPURAM-676 306. (TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION LIMIT) BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR & RAKESH K FOR CAVEATOR BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2403- 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID & ALEXANDER THOMAS, JJ.

================== M.A.No.251 of 2014 ================== Dated this the 24th day of March, 2014

JUDGMENT

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

The respondent in O.P.No.852/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Tirur, is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order dated 30.1.2014 in that original petition. The respondent herein is the wife. The wife, as petitioner filed the original petition for a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The original petition was tried along with O.P.No.819/2013 and M.C.No.742/2013. The said connected cases were also filed by the same petitioner, one for recovery of gold ornaments and money and the other for maintenance. All the cases were jointly tried and disposed of by the impugned common order. The original petition filed for divorce was decreed. A decree of divorce was passed dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. O.P.No.819/2013 was decreed directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 33,26,400/- to the wife as value of 216 sovereigns of gold ornaments. There was M.A.251/14 - :

2. :- a further direction in the said original petition to pay past maintenance as Rs. 81,000/-. In the M.C. case the court directed the respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd petitioner as monthly maintenance from the date of petition.

2. The husband filed two appeals. M.A.No.251/2014 arises out of O.P.No.852/2013. M.A.No.250/2014 was filed challenging the decree and judgment in O.P.No.819/2013. R.P. (F.C.)No.119/2014 was filed challenging the order in M.C.No.742/2013. The other two cases are pending consideration before this Court.

3. We have examined the contentions. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

4. The marriage between the parties was ceremonised on 22.2.2007. The original petition was filed alleging that the husband and his family members had treated her with cruelty. It is stated that she has been given 150 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The learned Family Court Judge, on the basis of evidence, concluded that the petitioner-wife is justified in seeking a divorce under Section 2(ii) as the period of neglect and failure to provide maintenance exceeds two years now. The M.A.251/14 - :

3. :- learned Judge also found that the petitioner also proved that there was cruelty from the part of the husband and his family members demanding more gold ornaments and compelling her to do hard household work. The learned Judge also, on evidence, found that the respondent-husband has married another lady and he has failed to treat the petitioner equitably along with the second wife as per the injunctions of the Holy Quran. The learned Judge observed that the respondent has no case that he has treated the petitioner equitably. More over the respondent- husband, admitted that he has not provided any maintenance to the petitioner and child after they have separated on 30.3.2010. Placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 5, the court below found that the parties are living separately from 30.3.2010 onwards without any marital relationship. The learned Judge found that the petitioner has proved the grounds under Section 2 (ii), (viii) (a) and (f) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act. The materials on record relied on by the learned Judge in granting divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act would show that the wife is entitled to dissolution of marriage. The wife has substantiated the grounds for dissolution of marriage as per the provisions of the Dissolution of Muslim M.A.251/14 - :

4. :- Marriage Act. The oral and documentary evidence would substantiate the facts and reasonings of the learned learned Judge. We do not find any reason to interfere with the decree and judgment passed by the court below in O.P.No.852/2013. In the above circumstances, M.A.No.251/2014 is dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that common judgment was passed in three cases and, therefore, all the cases will have to be heard and decided by a common judgment. We make it clear that the appellant is at liberty to prosecute the two other appeals on merits and dismissal of this appeal will not stand in the way of considering the other two appeals on merits. Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE Sd/- sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS , JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge