A man who refused maintenance to his estranged wife on ground of divorce under the Muslim Law has been declined relief by a city court
NEW DELHI: A man who refused maintenance to his estranged wife on ground of divorce under the Muslim Law has been declined relief by a city court which upheld an order directing him to pay Rs. 4,000 as monthly allowance under the Domestic Violence Act.
Additional Sessions Judge S.K. Sarvaria rejected contention of petitioner Mohd Umar Farooq who claimed that since he had divorced his wife, she was not entitled to any maintenance under the Muslim Woman (Protection of rights on Divorce) Act 1986.
"The appellant husband has relied upon the Fatwa dated November 17, which had been issued by a Maulvi last year. This only states that even if a person has made three or four pronouncements of Talaq to his wife in anger, the marriage stands dissolved.
In this Fatwa neither the name of parties nor the date when the three or four times Talaq was pronounced by the appellant husband is given. Therefore, this document relied upon by the appellant husband does not establish that he had given Talaq to the respondent wife," the court said.
Farooq had claimed that a divorced woman was entitled to Mehar or dower and return of the properties given to her at the time of the marriage by her relatives and friends or by the husband but was not entitled to any maintenance.
The woman, however, claimed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act applied to all irrespective of religion and caste.
Rubbishing the claim of divorce, she said that how can the husband divorce her on a day prior to making an undertaking before a magistrate that he would keep her well.
Farooq, who was arrested on November 13 following a harassment complaint by the woman, had promised to treat his wife well before the magistrate on November 14, 2007.
However, he contested the maintenance claim saying that he had divorced his wife on November 13, 2007.
The woman had moved a court of Metropolitan Magistrate which awarded her monthly maintenance of Rs 4,000.
Farooq had challenged the order of award by filing an appeal in a sessions court which found it devoid of merits.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=spacer}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}