Patna High Court Grants Maintenance To Muslim Woman Despite Triple Talaq | Talaq Invalid Under 2019 Act | Orders Husband To Pay Monthly Support To Wife And Son
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Patna Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar held that the pronouncement of triple talaq by a Muslim husband, in the absence of any provision for the wife during iddat, is illegal and invalid. The Court further directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance to his wife and child from the date of filing the maintenance petition, setting aside the prior denial of maintenance to the wife by the Family Court. The judgment was delivered in a criminal revision petition challenging the Family Court’s order that had granted maintenance to the minor child but denied the same to the wife.
The petitioners, a woman and her minor son, filed Maintenance Case No. 295 of 2017 under Section 125 Cr.PC before the Family Court, Purnia. They alleged that the woman’s marriage was solemnized on 18.02.2013 according to Muslim rites. Following the marriage, she began cohabiting with her husband, and their son was born in March 2014. Due to the ill-treatment by her husband’s relatives, the woman returned to her parental home during her pregnancy. Subsequently, her husband and his family demanded an additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs and threatened her with a second marriage in case of non-payment.
According to the petitioners, on 17.07.2017, she was ousted from the matrimonial home along with her newborn child, and her ornaments were allegedly taken. Her husband then solemnized a second marriage with another woman. The petitioners claimed that the husband had sufficient means, including ten acres of agricultural land, a tractor, and a corn factory machine, and was earning an annual income of Rs. 5 lakhs. They sought monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000.
The respondent-husband admitted to the marriage and paternity of the child but denied the claims of dowry demand and ouster. He alleged that his wife had an illicit relationship with a man named Md. Tarikat and left the matrimonial home voluntarily on 14.06.2017. He claimed that multiple panchayats were held regarding her return, and when efforts failed, he divorced her through Darul Kaza Edara Sharia, asserting she was living in adultery.
In his written statement and oral deposition, the respondent submitted that the wife left with their son to her parental home and then eloped with another man. The panchayat, attended by local dignitaries, allegedly entrusted the responsibility of returning the wife and son to her brother. When this failed, the respondent claimed he proceeded to divorce her. He further stated that he earned Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 3,500 monthly as a landless labourer.
In the Family Court proceedings, the wife examined herself, her brother, and a co-villager. She reiterated her claims and denied all allegations about adultery or voluntarily leaving her husband. She also denied being divorced or living with another man. She admitted to returning to her parental home multiple times but stated that her son was born there due to the hostility of her husband’s relatives.
The respondent examined seven witnesses, including himself. He produced panchnama documents and applications related to the panchayat meetings. During cross-examination, he admitted to marrying again and having a daughter from the second marriage. He stated he had no property and earned Rs. 5,000 per month as a labourer. He also admitted that the divorce document did not carry the wife’s signature and that no denmehar (dower) was paid.
Witnesses for the respondent, mostly co-villagers, claimed to have seen the wife with the alleged paramour but failed to recall specific dates or lodge complaints. Some also contradicted each other regarding the respondent’s second marriage and financial status.
The Family Court had held that the child was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per month from the date of the order but denied maintenance to the wife. The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 509 of 2021.
The High Court observed that "Triple Talaq is illegal and invalid in view of ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in Shayara Bano Case (supra), wherein Triple Talaq has been held to be arbitrary and illegal." The Court stated that the "Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Marriage) Act, 2019 also declares Triple Talaq void and illegal." It further recorded that there was "no pleading or evidence on record to prove that Bulbul Khatoon has been divorced by Md. Shamshad by any other legal mode."
The judgment stated: "Even if, it is presumed for a moment that petitioner No. 1/Bulbul Khatoon is divorced, the liability of Md. Shamshad to maintain his former wife is still there..." It held that "Triple Talaq in one sitting in the absence of any provision for the wife during iddat period" was not sufficient to extinguish the husband’s obligation.
Regarding adultery, the Court stated: "There is also no evidence on the part of Respondent No. 2 to prove that Bulbul Khatoon had been living in adultery and she had left her matrimonial home to lead adulterous life with Md. Tarikat." It found that "Nobody has seen Bulbul Khatoon leaving the matrimonial home in the company of Md. Tarikat."
It further recorded: "There is also no cogent evidence on record to show that Bulbul Khatoon is living with Md. Tarikat, nor anybody is a direct witness to adulterous life of Bulbul Khatoon with Md. Tarikat." The Court noted that "panchayat... does not prove that Bulbul Khatoon has been living in adultery with Md. Tarikat."
On the issue of leaving the matrimonial home, the Court found: "Bulbul Khatoon has left the matrimonial home on account of ill-treatment by Md. Shamshad due to her failure to meet his illegal demand of dowry..." and "Respondent No. 2/Md. Shamshad has failed to prove that Bulbul Khatoon has been living in adulterous life."
On quantum, the Court stated: "In view of such facts and circumstances, payment of Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife/Bulbul Khatoon by Md. Shamshad towards her maintenance from the date of filing of maintenance petition would meet the ends of justice." It also held: "there is no scope to enhance the quantum of maintenance payable by Md. Shamshad to his son/Danish Raza @ Rahul."
The Court set aside the Family Court's denial of maintenance to the wife, holding it was "based on no evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence." It directed that the wife be paid maintenance from the date of the maintenance petition.
The Court directed that "payment of Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife/Bulbul Khatoon by Md. Shamshad towards her maintenance from the date of filing of maintenance petition would meet the ends of justice." It also held: "Md. Shamshad is liable to pay maintenance to his son Danish Raza @ Rahul at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of filing of the maintenance petition i.e. 30.10.2017."
The criminal revision petition was allowed accordingly. The Court directed: "LCR be sent back to the Court concerned along with a copy of this order forthwith." It also instructed the Registrar General to circulate the judgment among all Family Courts of Bihar and to the Bihar Judicial Academy for inclusion in training programmes.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Md Fazle Karim, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP; Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate; Dr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate; Mr. Saroj Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
Case Title: Bulbul Khatoon & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 509 of 2021
Bench: Justice Jitendra Kumar
