SHAMIM ARA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 01-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SHAMIM ARA 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
OCTOBER I, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 125-Claimfor maintenance 
ly Muslim wife-Husband taking a plea of divorce in written statement without 
A 
B 
any proof of talaq-Family court and High Court holding it as talaq-On C 
appeal, held mere plea of divorce taken in written statement cannot be treated 
as pronouncement of talaq on wife on the date of filing of the written statement 
in the court followed by delivery of a copy thereof to the wife-Thus marriage 
does not dissolve and wife entitled to maintenance. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Pronounce '-Meaning of-Discussed 
D 
Appellant-wife filed an application for mainte'nance complaining 
desertion and cruelty on the part of her husband, Respondent No.2. The 
husband pleaded in the written statement that he had divorced the E 
appellant on 11.7.87. Family Court referred to some affidavit of 1988 filed 
in civil suit wherein respondent No. 2 had stated that he had divorced 
appellant a year ago and held that appellant having been divorced was 
not entitled to any maintenance. Appellant filed a revision. High Court 
held that communication of divorce stood completed on the date 
respondent No.2 filed written statement in the present proceedings and F 
appellant was entitled to claim maintenance upto the date of 
communication of divorce, whereafter the maintenance would cease. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A mere plea taken in the written statement, of a divorce 
having been pronounced sometime in the past cannot by itself be treated 
as effectuating talaq on the date of delivery of the copy of the written 
statement to the wife. So also an affidavit filed in some previous judicial 
19 
G 
H 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R .. 
A proceedings not inter parte, containing a self-serving statement of 
respondent No.2-husband, could not have been read in evidence as relevant 
and of any value. The talaq to be effective has to be pronounced. The term 
'pronounce' means to proclaim, to utter formally, to utter rhetorically, 
to declare, to utter, and to articulate. There is no proof of talaq having 
B taken place on 11. 7.1987. Respondent No. 2 ought to have adduced 
evidence and proved the pronouncement of talaq on 11.7.1987 and if he 
failed in proving the plea raised in the writteu1 statement, the plea ought 
to have been treated as failed. Thus High Co11rt erred in upholding the 
plea taken in the written statement and its communication to the wife by 
c 
D 
·delivering a copy of the written statement as talaq. (28-G, H; 29-A-CI 
1.2. Neither tht marriage between the parties stands dissolved on the 
date of filing written statement nor does the 1.iability of respondent No.2 
to pay maintenance come to an end on that d!ay. Respondent No.2 shall 
continue to remain liable for payment of main1tenance until the obligation 
comes to an end in accordance with law. (29-D-Ef 
Syed Jama/uddin v. Va/ian Bee and Anr., (1975) 2 APLJ 20 and Sri 
.liauddin Ahmed v. Mrs. Anwara Begum, (1981) I GLR 358, disapproved. 
Mohammed Haneefa v. Pathummal Beevi, (1972) K.L.T. 512; A. Yousuf 
Rawther v. Sowramma, AIR (1971) Kerala 261; Must. Rukia Khatun v. Abdul 
E Khalique laskar, (1981) 1 GLR 375 and Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain, AIR 
(1979) SC 362, referred to. 
F 
Dr. Tahir Mahomood's, 'The Muslim law of India' (Second Edition, 
pp. 113-119); Mui/a on Principles of Mahomedan law (Nineteenth Edition, 
1990 para 310) and Chambers 20thCenllllJ' Diclionwy, New Edition, p 1030, 
referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLXTE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
465 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and. Order dated 28.2.1995 of the Allahabad 
G High Court i'Jl Crl. R. No. 710 of 1993. 
Praveen Swarup for Pramod Swarup, for the Appellant. 
A.S. 'Pundir (NP), for the Respondent No. I. 
H 
Arvind Varma for Mis. K.L. Mehta & Co. for the Respondent No. 2. 
r 
... 
SHAMIM ARA v. STATE OF U.P. [R.C. LAHOTI, .I.) 
21 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.C. LAHOTI, J. Shamim Ara, the appellant and Abrar Ahmad, the 
respondent no.2 were married some time in 1968 according to Mus)im Shariyat 
Law. Four sons were born out of the wedlock. On 12.4.1979, the appellant, 
A 
on behalf of herself and for her two minor children, filed an application 
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. complaining of desertion and cruelty on the part B 
of respondent no.2 with her. By order dated 3.4.1993
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.