IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 524 of 2007()
1. SADIQ SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 34 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAHIRA, AGED 24 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SAJEEV
For Respondent :SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :06/06/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
R.P.F.C.No.524 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of June 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner has suffered an order under Section 125
Cr.P.C to pay maintenance to the claimant from the date of the
petition (22/9/2006) to the date of divorce, that is 10/4/2007.
Marriage is admitted. There was a contention raised that the
marital tie has been terminated by an agreement between the
parties even prior to the filing of the petition. Parties went to
trial on these contentions. The claimant/wife examined herself
as PW1. The petitioner examined himself as CPW1. The
petitioner relied on an agreement dated 12/8/2006 allegedly
executed by the petitioner and the claimant. The claimant did
not admit the document. The petitioner did not produce the
original of the document. In the light of the denial by the
claimant, the petitioner was certainly expected to adduce
evidence. He did not adduce any better evidence. In these
circumstances, the court did not place any reliance on the
photocopy of the alleged agreement dated 10/4/2007 which was
numbered as Ext.B1 for the purpose of reference.
R.P.F.C.No.524/07 2
2. The petitioner relied on Ext.B2 which is a further
communication which is admittedly signed by the petitioner to
the Mahal Committee. That letter would show that the petitioner
had subsequently pronounced talaq and had terminated the
marital tie. Significantly, Ext.B2 does not refer to Ext.B1 or any
anterior talaq by the petitioner. The learned Judge of the Family
Court in these circumstances took the view that the divorce can
be said to be effective only by Ext.B2 which is seen signed by the
petitioner only on 10/4/2007. In Ext.B2 significantly there is no
reference to an anterior talaq and the contents of Ext.B2 shows
that the talaq was pronounced by Ext.B2. It was in these
circumstances that the learned Judge of the Family Court took
the view that the divorce can be said to have been effected only
on 10/4/2007. The learned Judge of the Family Court in these
circumstances proceeded to award maintenance to the claimant
from the date of the petition to the date of divorce. The
petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What
is the grievance? The short grievance is that Ext.B1 must have
been acted upon and Ext.B2 should not have been reckoned as a
document under which divorce is effected.
3. The original of Ext.B1 is not produced even before this
court and it is not necessary for me to embark on any detailed
R.P.F.C.No.524/07 3
discussion as to whether that is a genuine agreement or not.
Suffice it to say that Ext.B2 clearly shows that the talaq was
pronounced only on 10/4/2007 as rightly noted by the learned
Judge of the Family Court. Ext.B2 does not significantly refer to
any anterior talaq and Ext.B2 only shows that the talaq was
thereby pronounced by the petitioner on 10/4/2007.
4. I am not, in these circumstances, satisfied that the
revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction can or
ought to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case.
5. This revision petition is in these circumstances
dismissed. I may hasten to observe that inasmuch as the original
of Ext.B1 is not produced, I am not proceeding to express any
opinion finally on the acceptability of the original of Ext.B1. The
petitioner’s option to plead and establish that such a document
was genuinely executed in other proceedings shall of course
remain.
6. The amounts deposited as per the interim order
passed by this court shall forthwith be released to the claimant.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
R.P.F.C.No.524/07 4
R.P.F.C.No.524/07 5
R.BASANT, J
R.P.F.C.No.
ORDER
11/02/2008
