Mat. Appeal No.613 of 2010. Case: Parakkattil Abu Vs Pachiyath Beekkutty. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | Mat. Appeal No.613 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Babu S. Nair, K. Rakesh, Advs. |
| Judges | R. Basant, J. and M. L. Joseph Francis , J. |
| Issue | Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (8 of 1939) - Section 2(8)(f) |
| Citation | AIR 2011 Ker 38 |
| Judgement Date | September 27, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
Basant, J.
-
Did the Court below err in granting a decree of divorce in favour of the wife in distress under S. 2(viii)(f) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act? Did the Court below err in accepting the assertions of the wife merely? Did the Court below armed with the dictum in Abdurahiman v. Khairunneesa (2010 (1) KLT 891) exhibit unholy/unworthy haste in disposing of the claim for divorce? Is the appellant/husband, in the light of undisputed facts and circumstances, entitled for the luxury of a further opportunity when the contentions that he wants to raise cannot admittedly help him to avoid the impugned decree? These questions arise for determination in this case.
-
This matrimonial appeal is preferred by the appellant/husband claiming to be aggrieved by an order of dissolution of marriage passed under S. 2(viii)(f) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage, Act in favour of the respondent his wife.
-
Marriage is admitted. The marriage took place on 18-8-1980 admittedly. Two children have been born in the wedlock.
-
Admittedly the appellant/husband got re-married. The date of re-marriage is not specified. Anyhow, it is not in dispute that after about 2? decades of matrimony with the respondent, the appellant chose to marry again in 2005.
-
Obviously the second marriage was not with the consent of the respondent-wife and the respondent-wife came to Court raising allegations of matrimonial cruelty against the husband. Her claim for divorce was founded on the alleged circumstances that subsequent to the second marriage, the husband has been treating her cruelly and inequitably.
-
The matter stood posted to 17-5-2005 for appearance of the husband. He did not appear on that day. The case was adjourned to 28-5-2010. On that day, he entered appearance through counsel. No counter-statement was filed. Time was sought. That was not allowed. The wife filed an affidavit in support of her claim for divorce on the ground of cruelty and more specifically on the ground of cruelty of the variety contemplated under S. 2(viii)(f) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, i.e. inequitable treatment of one wife when there were plurality of wives as permitted under the Muslim personal law.
-
The Court below accepted the affidavit of the respondent-wife and proceeded to pass the impugned order. The husband/appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order.
-
What is his grievance? The learned counsel for the appellant first of all...
To continue reading
Request your trial