corporate law
In a significant ruling concerning a husband's duty to provide maintenance to his wife, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently pronounced the judgment in the case of Fayaz Ahmad Wani vs Mst Hameeda, on July 4, 2024. The court firmly stated that a husband cannot simply end a Muslim marriage by pronouncing "Talaq" three times, nor can he evade his responsibilities such as maintaining his wife.
The judgment, delivered by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, emphasizes that for a Talaq to be legally valid, it must include several essential actions:
These prerequisites are mandatory and must be strictly followed.
In February 2018, the Trial Court ruled in favor of the husband, declaring that the parties were no longer married and thus maintenance was not required. However, this decision was overturned by the Additional Sessions Revision Court, which mandated the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹3,000 to the wife. This ruling was then contested by the husband in the Srinagar High Court, which upheld the Revision Court's decision and dismissed his appeal.
The court highlighted in paragraph 1 that the petitioner's pursuit was to overturn the order dated October 24, 2018, from the Additional Sessions Judge in Pulwama.
As noted in paragraph 3, Mst. Hameeda filed an application under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (J&K) for maintenance in 2009, which initially resulted in an ex parte judgment on December 14, 2009. Subsequent revisions through various court instances led the case back to the Trial Court, which ultimately dismissed her application on February 5, 2018, asserting the couple's non-marital status.
In paragraph 4, it was established that the Trial Court dismissed the application due to a lack of a recognized spousal relationship. Following this, the respondent appealed, and the Revisional Court ordered the husband to pay maintenance retroactively to the original application date of August 25, 2009.
The petitioner contended in paragraph 6 that the Revisional Court failed to accurately assess the facts and circumstances from the Trial Court's perspective. He claimed the Trial Court's decision was based on thorough evidence and confirmed that he had provided clear proof of intending to divorce.
In paragraph 8, the Bench addressed the issue of whether the proceedings for maintenance could be invalidated through the husband's divorce claim. Such a claim was deemed unacceptable, drawing from precedent established in Mohammad Naseem Bhat v. Bilquees Akhter (2012).
The court articulated in paragraph 9 that merely pronouncing Talaq in the presence of witnesses is insufficient for a legitimate divorce. The witnesses must have a sense of justice to encourage reconciliation, and the husband must prove the following to validate a Talaq:
Only by satisfying these criteria can a husband claim to terminate his marriage and relieve himself of maintenance obligations.
The Bench concluded, as outlined in paragraph 10, that the Revisional Court rightly took into account the testimonies indicating unsuccessful reconciliation attempts. Consequently, the judgment of October 24, 2018, was upheld in paragraph 11, indicating that the petitioner's appeal to dismiss the maintenance order was denied.
This landmark ruling clarifies that a husband is not exempt from maintenance obligations upon declaring a divorce. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Mohd Abdul Samad vs The State of Telangana & Anr, reinforced that a Muslim woman wrongfully divorced via triple Talaq is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and additionally under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
In summary, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's ruling reinforces the understanding that husbands cannot evade their responsibilities towards their wives by merely pronouncing Talaq thrice.