{"id":255171,"date":"2002-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002"},"modified":"2018-11-01T17:41:19","modified_gmt":"2018-11-01T12:11:19","slug":"shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: R Lahoti<\/div>\n
Bench: R.C. Lahoti, P.Venkatarama Reddi.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  465 of 1996\n\nPETITIONER:\nShamim Ara\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of U.P. & Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/10\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nR.C. LAHOTI & P.VENKATARAMA REDDI.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
R.C. Lahoti, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tShamim Ara, the appellant and Abrar Ahmad, the respondent
\nno.2 were married some time in 1968 according to Muslim Shariyat
\nLaw.  Four sons were born out of the wedlock. On 12.4.1979, the
\nappellant, on behalf of herself and for her two minor children, filed an
\napplication under Section 125<\/a> Cr.P.C. complaining of desertion and
\ncruelty on the part of\trespondent no.2 with her.  By order dated
\n3.4.1993 the learned Presiding Judge of the Family Court at Allahabad
\nrefused to grant any maintenance to the appellant on the ground that
\nshe was already divorced by the respondent and hence not entitled to
\nany maintenance.  However, maintenance at the rate of Rs.150\/- per
\nmonth was allowed for one son of the appellant for the period during
\nwhich he remained a minor; the other one having become major
\nduring the pendency of the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent no.2 in his reply (written statement) dated
\n5.12.1990, to the application under Section 125<\/a> Cr.P.C., denied all the
\naverments made in the application.  One of the pleas taken by way of
\nadditional pleas is that he had divorced the appellant on 11.7.1987 and
\nsince then the parties had ceased to be spouses.  He also claimed
\nprotection behind the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
\nDivorce) Act<\/a>, 1986 and submitted that the respondent no.2 had
\npurchased a house and delivered the same to the appellant in lieu of
\nMehar (Dower), and therefore, the appellant was not entitled to any
\nmaintenance.  No particulars of divorce were pleaded excepting
\nmaking a bald statement as already stated hereinabove.
\n\tThe appellant emphatically denied having been divorced at any
\ntime.  The respondent no.2, when he appeared in the witness-box,
\nstated having divorced the appellant on 11.7.1987 at 11 a.m. in the
\npresence of Mehboob and other 4-5 persons of the neighbourhood. He
\nfurther stated that since 1988 he had not paid anything either to the
\nappellant or to any of the four sons for their maintenance.  The
\ndivorce said to have been given by him to the appellant was a triple
\ntalaq though such a fact was not stated in the written statement.
\n\tThe Family Court in its order dated 3.4.1993 dealt with and
\nupheld a strange story of divorce totally beyond the case set up by the
\nrespondent no.2. The learned Presiding Judge referred to some
\naffidavit dated 31.8.1988 said to have been filed by the respondent
\nNo.2 in some civil suit details whereof are not available from the
\nrecord of the present case but certainly to which litigation the
\nappellant was not a party.  In that affidavit it was stated by the
\nrespondent no.2 that he had divorced the appellant 15 months before.
\nThe learned Judge held that from such affidavit the plea of the
\nrespondent no.2 found corroboration of his having divorced the
\nappellant.  The learned Judge concluded that the appellant was not
\nentitled to any maintenance in view of her having been divorced.
\n\tThe appellant preferred a revision before the High Court.  The
\nHigh Court held that the divorce which is alleged to have been given
\nby the respondent no.2 to the appellant was not given in the presence
\nof the appellant and it is not the case of the respondent that the same
\nwas communicated to her.  But the communication would stand
\ncompleted on 5.12.1990 with the filing of the written statement by the
\nrespondent no.2 in the present case.  Therefore, the High Court
\nconcluded that the appellant was entitled to claim maintenance from
\n1.1.1988 to 5.12.1990 (the later date being the one on which reply to
\napplication under Section 125<\/a> Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent
\nNo.2 in the Court) whereafter her entitlement to have maintenance
\nfrom respondent no.2 shall cease.  The figure of maintenance was
\nappointed by the High Court at Rs.200\/-.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.  The
\nsingular issue arising for decision is whether the appellant can be said
\nto have been divorced and the said divorce communicated to the
\nappellant so as to become effective  from 5.12.1990, the date of filing
\nof the written statement by the respondent no.2 in these proceedings.
\n\tNone of the ancient holy books or scriptures of muslims
\nmentions in its text such a form of divorce as has been accepted by the
\nHigh Court and the Family Court.  No such text has been brought to
\nour notice which provides that a recital in any document, whether a
\npleading or an affidavit, incorporating a statement by the husband that
\nhe has already divorced his wife on an unspecified or specified date
\neven if not communicated to the wife would become an effective
\ndivorce on the date on which the wife happens to learn of such
\nstatement contained in the copy of the affidavit or pleading served on
\nher.  Mulla on Principles of Mahomedan Law (Nineteenth Edition,
\n1990) states vide para 310:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“310.  Talak may be oral or in writing.__
\nA talak may be effected (1) orally (by spoken
\nwords) or (2) by a written document called a
\ntalaknama (d).\n<\/p>\n
\t(1)  Oral Talak. __ No particular form of
\nwords is prescribed for effecting a talak.  If the
\nwords are express (saheeh)or well understood  as
\nimplying divorce no proof  of intention is required.
\nIf the words are ambiguous (kinayat), the intention
\nmust be proved (e).  It is not necessary that the
\ntalak should be pronounced in the presence of the
\nwife or even addressed to her (f).  In a Calcutta
\ncase the husband merely pronounced the word
\n“talak” before a family council and this was held
\nto be invalid as the wife was not named (g).  This
\ncase was cited with approval by the Judicial
\nCommittee in a case where the talak was valid
\nthough pronounced in the wife’s absence, as the
\nwife was named (h).  The Madras High Court has
\nalso held that the words should refer to the wife (i).
\nThe talak pronounced in the absence of the wife
\ntakes effect though not communicated to her, but
\nfor purposes of dower it is not necessary that it
\nshould come to her knowledge (j); and her alimony
\nmay continue till she is informed of the divorce\n<\/p>\n
(k).  As the divorce becomes effective for purposes
\nof dower only when communicated to the wife,
\nlimitation under Art. 104<\/a> for the wife’s suit for
\ndeferred dower ran from the time when the divorce
\ncomes to her notice (l), under the Act of 1908.\t See
\nalso the Limitation Act<\/a>, 1963.\n<\/p>\n
\tWords of divorce.__ The words of divorce
\nmust indicate an intention to dissolve the marriage.
\nIf they are express (saheeh), e.g., “Thou art
\ndivorced,” “I have divorced thee,” or “I divorce
\nmy wife for ever and render her haram from me”
\n[Rashid Ahmad v. Anisa Khatun<\/a> (1932) 59 I.A.
\n21], they clearly indicate an intention to dissolve
\nthe marriage and no proof of intention is
\nnecessary.  But if they are ambiguous (kinayat),
\ne.g., “Thou art my cousin, the daughter of my
\nuncle, if thou goest” [Hamid Ali v. Imtiazan<\/a> (1878)
\n2 All.71] or “I give up all relations and would have
\nno connection of any sort with you” [Wajid Ali v.
\nJafar Husain<\/a> (1932) 7 Luck, 430, 136 I.C. 209,
\n(’32) A.O.34], the intention must be proved.\n<\/p>\n
\tPronouncement of the word talak in the
\npresence of the wife or when the knowledge of
\nsuch pronouncement comes to the knowledge of
\nthe wife, results in the dissolution of the marriage.
\nThe intention of the husband is inconsequential.
\nGhansi Bibi v. Ghulam Dastagir (1968) 1 Mys.
\nL.J. 566.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf a man says to his wife that she has been
\ndivorced yesterday or earlier, it leads to a divorce
\nbetween them, even if there be no proof of a
\ndivorce on the previous day or earlier.”\n<\/p>\n
  [(f)\tMa Mi v. Kallander Ammal<\/a>, supra;\n<\/p>\n
Ahmad Kasim v. Khatoon Bibi<\/a> (1932) 59
\nCal. 833, 141 I.C. 689, (’33) A.C. 27;\n<\/p>\n
Fulchand v. Nazib Ali (1909) 36 Cal.\n<\/p>\n
184, 1 I.C. 740; Sarabai v. Rabiabai<\/a>
\n(1905) 30 Bom. 536 (obiter).\n<\/p>\n
  (g)\tFurzund Hussein v. Janu Bibee<\/a> (1878) 4
\nCal. 588.\n<\/p>\n
 (h)\tRashid Ahmad v. Anisa Khatoon<\/a> (1932)
\n59 I.A. 21, 54 All.46, 135 I.C. 762, (’32)
\nA.P.C. 25.\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tAsha Bibi v. Kadir<\/a>, supra.\n<\/p>\n
(j)\tFulchand v. Nazib Ali, supra.\n<\/p>\n
(k)\tMa Mi v. Kallandar Ammal<\/a>, supra;\n<\/p>\n
Abdul Khader v. Azeeza Bee<\/a> (1944) 1
\nM.L.J. 17, 214 I.C. 38, (’44) A.M. 227.\n<\/p>\n
(l)\tKathiyumma v. Urathel Marakkar<\/a> (1931)
\n133 I.C. 375, (’31) A.M. 647.]<\/p>\n
The statement of law by Mulla as contained in para 310 and footnotes
\nthereunder is based on certain rulings of Privy Council and the High
\nCourts.\t The decision of A.P. High Court in (1975) 1 APLJ 20 has
\nalso been  cited by Mulla in support of the proposition that the
\nstatement by husband in pleadings filed in answer to petition for
\nmaintenance by wife that he had already divorced the petitioner (wife)
\nlong ago operates as divorce.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe will offer our comments on this a little later.  Immediately
\nwe proceed to notice a few other authorities.
\n\tIn Dr. Tahir Mahmood’s ‘The Muslim Law of India’ (Second
\nEdition, at pp.113119), the basic rule stated is that a Muslim husband
\nunder all schools of Muslim Law can divorce his wife by his unilateral
\naction and without the intervention of the Court.  This power is known
\nas the power to pronounce a talaq. A few decided cases are noticed by
\nthe learned author wherein it has been held that a statement made by
\nthe husband during the course of any judicial proceedings such as in
\nwife’s suit for maintenance or restitution of conjugal rights, or the
\nhusband’s plea of divorce raised in the pleadings did effect a talaq.
\nSuch liberal view of talaq bringing to an end the marital
\nrelationship between Muslim spouses and heavily loaded\tin favour of
\nMuslim husbands has met with criticism and strong disapproval at the
\nhands of eminent jurists.\n<\/p>\n
\tV. Khalid, J., as His Lordship then was, observed in
\nMohammed Haneefa Vs. Pathummal Beevi, 1972 K.L.T. 512 __ “I
\nfeel it my duty to alert public opinion towards a painful aspect that
\nthis case reveals.  A Division Bench of this court, the highest court for
\nthis State, has clearly indicated the extent of the unbridled power of a
\nmuslim husband to divorce his wife.  I am extracting below what
\nTheir Lordships have said in Pathayi v. Moideen (1968 KLT 763).
\n\t“The only condition necessary for the valid
\nexercise of the right of divorce by a husband is that
\nhe must be a major and of sound mind at that time.
\nHe can effect divorce whenever he desires.  Even
\nif he divorces his wife under compulsion, or in
\njest, or in anger that is considered perfectly valid.
\nNo special form is necessary for effecting divorce
\nunder Hanafi law .. The husband can
\neffect if by conveying to the wife that he is
\nrepudiating the alliance.  It need not even be
\naddressed to her.  It takes effect the moment it
\ncomes to her knowledge.”\n<\/p>\n
Should muslim wives suffer this tyranny for all times?\tShould their
\npersonal law remain so cruel towards these unfortunate wives?  Can it
\nnot be amended suitably to alleviate their sufferings?\tMy judicial
\nconscience is disturbed at this monstrosity.  The question is whether
\nthe conscience of the leaders of public opinion of the community will
\nalso be disturbed.”(p.514)
\n\tIn an illuminating judgment, virtually a research document, the
\neminent judge and jurist V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., as His Lordship then
\nwas, has made extensive observations.  The judgment is reported as
\nA. Yousuf Rawther Vs. Sowramma, AIR 1971 Kerala 261.  It would
\nsuffice for our purpose to extract and reproduce a few out of the
\nseveral observations made by His Lordship:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The interpretation of a legislation,
\nobviously intended to protect a weaker section of
\nthe community, like women, must be informed by
\nthe social perspective and purpose and, within its
\ngrammatical flexibility, must further the beneficent
\nobject.\t And so we must appreciate the Islamic
\nethos and the general sociological background
\nwhich inspired the enactment of the law before
\nlocating the precise connotation of the words used
\nin the statute. (para 6)<\/p>\n
\t“Since infallibility is not an attribute of the
\njudiciary, the view has been ventured by Muslim
\njurists that the Indo-Anglian judicial exposition of
\nthe Islamic law of divorce has not exactly been just
\nto the Holy Prophet or the Holy Book.  Marginal
\ndistortions are inevitable when the Judicial
\nCommittee in Downing Street has to interpret
\nManu and Muhammad of India and Arabia.\tThe
\nsoul of a culture __ law is largely the formalized
\nand enforceable expression of a community’s
\ncultural norms __ cannot be fully understood by
\nalien minds.  The view that the Muslim husband
\nenjoys an arbitrary, unilateral power to inflict
\ninstant divorce does not accord with Islamic
\ninjunctions.” (para 7)<\/p>\n
\t“It is a popular fallacy that a Muslim male
\nenjoys, under the Quaranic Law, unbridled
\nauthority to liquidate the marriage.  “The whole
\nQuoran expressly forbids a man to seek pretexts
\nfor divorcing his wife, so long as she remains
\nfaithful and obedient to him, ‘if they (namely,
\nwomen) obey you, then do not seek a way against
\nthem’.” (Quaran IV:34).\t The Islamic “law gives to
\nthe man primarily the faculty of dissolving the
\nmarriage, if the wife, by her indocility or her bad
\ncharacter, renders the married life unhappy; but in
\nthe absence of serious reasons, no man can justify
\na divorce, either in the eye of religion or the law.
\nIf he abandons his wife or puts her away in simple
\ncaprice, he draws upon himself the divine anger,
\nfor the curse of God, said the Prophet, rests on him
\nwho repudiates his wife capriciously.” (para 7)<\/p>\n
\t“Commentators on the Quoran have rightly
\nobserved __ and this tallies with the law now
\nadministered in some Muslim countries like Iraq __
\nthat the husband must satisfy the court about the
\nreasons for divorce.  However, Muslim law, as
\napplied in India, has taken a course contrary to the
\nspirit of what the Prophet or the Holy Quoran laid
\ndown and the same misconception vitiates the law
\ndealing with the wife’s right to divorce.” (para 7)<\/p>\n
\t“After quoting from the Quoran and the
\nProphet, Dr. Galwash concludes that “divorce is
\npermissible in Islam only in cases of extreme
\nemergency.  When all efforts for effecting a
\nreconciliation have failed, the parties may proceed
\nto a dissolution of the marriage by ‘Talaq’ or by
\n‘Khola’. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Consistently with the
\nsecular concept of marriage and divorce, the law
\ninsists that at the time of Talaq the husband must
\npay off the settlement debt to the wife and at the
\ntime of Kholaa she has to surrender to the husband
\nher dower or abandon some of her rights, as
\ncompensation.” (para 7)<\/p>\n
\tThere is yet another illuminating and weighty judicial opinion
\navailable in two decisions of Gauhati High Court recorded by Baharul
\nIslam, J. (later a Judge of the Supreme Court of India) sitting singly in
\nSri Jiauddin Ahmed Vs. Mrs. Anwara Begum, (1981) 1 GLR 358
\nand later speaking for the Division Bench in Must. Rukia Khatun Vs.
\nAbdul Khalique Laskar, (1981) 1 GLR 375.  In Jiauddin Ahmed’s
\ncase a plea of previous divorce, i.e. the husband having divorced the
\nwife on some day much previous to the date of filing of the written
\nstatement in the Court was taken and upheld.  The question posed
\nbefore the High Court was whether there has been valid talaq of the
\nwife by the husband under the Muslim law?  The learned Judge
\nobserved that though marriage under the Muslim law is only a civil
\ncontract yet the rights and responsibilities consequent upon it are of
\nsuch importance to the welfare of humanity, that a high degree of
\nsanctity is attached to it.  But inspite of the sacredness of the character
\nof the marriage-tie, Islam recognizes the necessity, in exceptional
\ncircumstances, of keeping the way open for its dissolution. (Para 6).
\nQuoting in the judgment several Holy Quranic verses and from
\ncommentaries thereon by well-recognized scholars of great eminence,
\nthe learned Judge expressed disapproval of the statement that “the
\nwhimsical and capricious divorce by the husband is good in law,
\nthough bad in theology” and observed that such a statement is based
\non the concept that women were chattel belonging to men, which the
\nHoly Quran does not brook.  The correct law of talaq as ordained by
\nthe Holy Quran is that talaq must be for a reasonable cause and be
\npreceded by attempts at reconciliation between the husband and the
\nwife by two arbiters __ one from the wife’s family and the other from
\nthe husband’s; if the attempts fail, talaq may be effected. (Para 13).\tIn
\nRukia Khatun’s case, the Division Bench stated that the correct law
\nof talaq, as ordained by Holy Quran, is: (i) that ‘talaq’ must be for a
\nreasonable cause; and (ii) that it must be preceded by an attempt of
\nreconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiters, one
\nchosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from
\nhis. If their attempts fail, ‘talaq’ may be effected.  The Division Bench
\nexpressly recorded its dissent from the Calcutta and Bombay view
\nwhich, in their opinion, did not lay down the correct law.\n<\/p>\n
We are in respectful agreement with the abovesaid observations
\nmade by the learned Judges of High Courts. We must note that the
\nobservations were made 20-30 years before and our country has in
\nrecent times marched steps ahead in all walks of life including
\nprogressive interpretation of laws which cannot be lost sight of except
\nby compromising with regressive trends.\t What this Court observed in
\nBai Tahira Vs. Ali Hussain  AIR 1979 SC 362 dealing with right to
\nmaintenance of a muslim divorcee is noteworthy.\t To quote :
\n“The meaning of meanings is derived from
\nvalues in a given society and its legal
\nsystem.\t Article 15(3)<\/a> has compelling,
\ncompassionate relevance in the context of
\nS.125 and the benefit of doubt, if any, in
\nstatutory interpretation belongs to the ill-
\nused wife and the derelict divorcee.  This
\nsocial perspective granted, the resolution of
\nall the disputes projected is easy.  Surely,
\nParliament, in keeping with Art. 15(3)<\/a> and
\ndeliberate by design, made a special
\nprovision to help women in distress cast
\naway by divorce.  Protection against moral
\nand material abandonment manifest in
\nArt.39<\/a> is part of social and economic justice,
\nspecificated in Art.38<\/a>, fulfillment of which
\nis fundamental to the governance of the
\ncountry (Art.37<\/a>).  From this coign of
\nvantage we must view the printed text of the
\nparticular Code.” (para 7)<\/p>\n
“Law is dynamic and its meaning cannot be
\npedantic but purposeful.” (para 12)<\/p>\n
\tThe plea taken by the husband-respondent no.2 in his written
\nstatement may be re-noticed.  The respondent No.2 vaguely makes
\ncertain generalized accusations against the wife-appellant and states
\nthat ever since the marriage he found his wife to be sharp, shrewd and
\nmischievous.  Accusing the wife of having brought disgrace to the
\nfamily, the respondent No.2 proceeds to state, vide para 12 (translated
\ninto English) __ “The answering respondent, feeling fade up with all
\nsuch activities unbecoming of the wife-petitioner, has divorced her on
\n11.7.87.”  The particulars of the alleged talaq are not pleaded nor the
\ncircumstances under which and the persons, if any, in whose presence
\ntalaq was pronounced have been stated.\tSuch deficiency\t continued to
\nprevail even during the trial and the respondent No.2, except
\nexamining himself, adduced no evidence in proof of talaq said to have
\nbeen given by him on 11.7.1987.\t There are no reasons substantiated
\nin justification of talaq and no plea or proof that any effort at
\nreconciliation preceded the talaq.\n<\/p>\n
We are also of the opinion that the talaq to be effective has to
\nbe pronounced.\tThe term ‘pronounce’ means to proclaim, to utter
\nformally, to utter rhetorically, to declare to, utter, to articulate (See
\nChambers 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition, p.1030).\t There is no
\nproof of talaq having taken place on 11.7.1987.\t What the High Court
\nhas upheld as talaq is the plea taken in the written statement and its
\ncommunication to the wife by delivering a copy of the written
\nstatement on 5.12.1990.\t We are very clear in our mind that a mere
\nplea taken in the written statement of a divorce having been
\npronounced sometime in the past cannot by itself be treated as
\neffectuating talaq on the date of delivery of the copy of the written
\nstatement to the wife.\tThe respondent No.2 ought to have adduced
\nevidence and proved the pronouncement of talaq on 11.7.1987 and if
\nhe failed in proving the plea raised in the written statement, the plea
\nought to have been treated as failed.  We do not agree with the view
\npropounded in the decided cases referred to by Mulla and Dr. Tahir
\nMahmood in their respective commentaries, wherein a mere plea of
\nprevious talaq taken in the written statement, though unsubstantiated,
\nhas been accepted as proof of talaq bringing to an end the marital
\nrelationship with effect from the date of filing of the written
\nstatement.   A plea of previous divorce taken in the written statement
\ncannot at all be treated as pronouncement of talaq by the husband on
\nwife on the date of filing of the written statement in the Court
\nfollowed by delivery of a copy thereof to the wife.  So also the
\naffidavit dated 31.8.1988, filed in some previous judicial proceedings
\nnot inter parte, containing a self-serving statement of respondent no.2,
\ncould not have been read in evidence as relevant and of any value.\n<\/p>\n
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed.  Neither the
\nmarriage between the parties stands dissolved on 5.12.1990 nor does
\nthe liability of the respondent No.2 to pay maintenance comes to an
\nend on that day. The respondent No.2 shall continue to remain liable
\nfor payment of maintenance until the obligation comes to an end in
\naccordance with law.  The costs in this appeal shall be borne by the
\nrespondent No.2.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002 Author: R Lahoti Bench: R.C. Lahoti, P.Venkatarama Reddi. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 465 of 1996 PETITIONER: Shamim Ara RESPONDENT: State of U.P. & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/10\/2002 BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & P.VENKATARAMA REDDI. JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-255171","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-01T12:11:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-01T12:11:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3621,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002\",\"name\":\"Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-01T12:11:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-01T12:11:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-01T12:11:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002"},"wordCount":3621,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002","name":"Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-01T12:11:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-1-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255171","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=255171"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255171\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255171"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255171"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255171"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}