Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court in its order, stated that the Muslim marriage is a contract with many shades of meaning, and not a sacrament unlike a Hindu marriage. The bench made the remarks in an order dated October 7 while hearing a PIL filed by Ezazur Rehman (52) in Bengaluru, on a case regarding ‘Mehr’ after Triple Talaq.
The observation was made by the court while considering the petition by Rehman, which sought quashing an order passed by the First Additional Principal Judge of Family Court on August 12, 2011. Rehman had divorced his wife Saira Banu by uttering Talaq on November 25, 1991, months after the marriage with a ‘Mehr’ of ?5,000. After the divorce, Rehman got married again, and became the father of a child. Banu then filed a civil suit for maintenance on August 24, 2002. According to the 2011 order, the litigant is entitled to monthly maintenance at the rate of ?3,000 from the date of the suit till the death of the litigant or till she gets remarried or till the death of the defendant.
The plea was dismissed by Justice Krishna S Dixit who noted that, ‘marriage is a contract has many shades of meaning; It is not a sacrament unlike a Hindu marriage, is true. Such a marriage dissolved by divorce, per se does not annihilate all the duties and obligations of parties by lock, stock and barrel’. The Judge further said that the marriage amongst Muslims begins with the contract and graduates to the status as it ordinarily does in any other community. ‘This very status gives rise to certain justiciable obligations. They are ex contractu,’ the court said.
Also read: Throat slit, feet chopped off; Woman found murdered in Jaipur village
The court ordered that a Muslim ex-wife has a right to maintenance subject to satisfying certain conditions, is indisputable. ‘Ordinarily, the right of an ex-wife to maintenance does not extend beyond ‘Iddat’. I should hasten to add that Islamic jurisprudence has not treated this as a thumb rule ever, although there is some juristic opinion in variance. This norm has to be subject to the rider that the amount paid to the ex-wife, be it in the form of ‘Mehr’ or be it a sum qualified on the basis of ‘mehr’, or otherwise, is not an inadequate or illusory sum,’ Justice Dixit observed. He also pointed out that ‘Mehr’ is fixed inadequately adding that the bride lacks equal bargaining power inter alia because of economic and gender-related factors.
Post Your Comments