CHAPTER XIV

MARRIAGE, MAINTENANCE OF WIVE S AN~

RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS

! I
A.-MA RRIAG E

§lSO. Definition of marri age Marriage (nikah) is defined to be a

ct which has for its object the procreation and the legalizing of
contra . .
childre n./ •,

- Hedaya, 25; Baillie, 4.

Contract
SYNOPSIS
329 I Zina 330

Contract
Marriage ac~rdi!}g_ to the Mahom e~an law is not_a_~a~ram~J2ut a ctvil_~O!}trast. All
the rignts and obligations it creates arise immediately a9d,. are not depend ent on any
condition precedent such as the paymen t of ~ower by hus~~nd to a wife~~ ·-
The Rajasthan High Court has made a very sound observation in the instant case' that
unlike a Hindu Marriage, which is a sacrament~ according t<?~ th_e Jsljtrrpc Law, ~_marriage
("Nikah") is a perman ent and unconditional civil C(!p.tract (~hic}l comes into immedi
ate
effect) made betwe~I_l two persons oJ QPPOJi!e se'xe~_,with a view to i:n_Utl!.aJ enj9ym ent and
~tion fil!<!_l~gc!lizfug orduldreI).. One of ~e _essential features of a valid_marriage is
the payme~Lof_:mehr" (doweJ).-- Although it is an obligation upon the husl:!and, but the
wife is well within her rights to relinquish th~ said do~~r. Sinct? th~ £O_l)~eE!. of contrac t is
the ..Qas}~_of marriage, the principles of a valid contract would be applicable to the
re½tquishmenJ.. Thus, -the relinquishment should be made. voluntarily. It should not be
made by dure·ss, fraud, misrepresentation:·u'iider influence or mistake.' It should be made
with free consent. 2 •
r

. For a very inf~rmative consideration·of the concept of marriage and divorce, see the
JUd~n t of. the__Pakistan Supreme Court in Khurshid Bibi v. Mohd Amif!,3
In this case
~UStice S~Rahman who wrote the judgement says that "amo~g Muslims, marriage is not a-\
8clefcUnent
, out isin the nature of civil_co:Qtract. Such a contract undoub~ed~y, has spiritual
and mo~al overtones-and undertones but legally, in e~senc~, it remains ~ ~ontract between:'?(
f
the Parties ....:; Thi~ judgment, does· not
say that m~age 1s_ pµrely, a, civil contract, or for r
that matter, acivil co1_1tract. It merely
re.gards to be in the nature of a civil contrac.!,: _,/ \
In the opinion of the ~resent editort the nature of a Muslim marriage should, apart .._
, from many similarities with a civil contract also be seen in the light of various Sunnah of

;-' Abd~l Kadir v. Salima (1886) 8 All. 149.

• Hasma Bano v. Alam Noor A.I.R. 2007 RaJ 49.
3• P.L.D: 1967,
S.C. 97. .
t The revising editor of the 20th Edition.
 330 §2S1 Chap. XIV-Marriage, Maintenance of Wives and R •..
esruu,;
o,a, etc
. the P~oph<:t :1°~- ~th~. ~gh~ an_d obligatio~s W,posed b~ ~l~gh_ty i_!l the Hot
4
•
seen 10 that bgQt, the mstitut1on of mamage 1S compnsed of both worship ( Quran. If
,.the worldly affairs (M~la!)· In thi~ perspective, it is a. civil colltract in' w':') illld
• consent of both the parties 1s essential; on .the accomplishment of it h ch free
relationship of both the contracting part!es is not determined as a pure ci~il owever, the
0
is determined in combin~tion with _the religious connotati~~·' :- , , . ; ~ ~ac~ but
~· •

' Zina·
...
.,-.,.--'---•""-..:. ,-.........,.

?ftw means (!?~c~tjQn) or ad~~~ry. , Se~~~!_ in!e_r~o~r~~ _not__~ermitted b

M~~.!!!~dan_law_1s._z1n_a) The offspnng of such mtercourse 1s illegitimate, and c--~
legitima~ed by ackno~l~dgmen~ (§344(2)),., _ , . ,, 1;.. , > .. ~ot be
•' • •• < , , • • I i . • I_ .
•
; ' • , ~Ac>
•
<•
. •
• i,. _,..
I
;
;.
l
•
;,

•• • ,
l , , .,.· . ; • • 1
•- ! .> , , l . · r . ,•
1

·_ §251. Capacity'for marriage '(1) Every Mahomedah ·or(s·~urid ~(

who has attained puberty, may enter into a contract of marriag~. , ,· ,~d,
A Mahomedan grrl of 15 years who has attained the age of puberty is' compete· •
• • , ; : ; J ; r t •. , ; ,

,
- marry without the consent of her pare~~ ,,, i • : n1 to
. ~arriage under the Mahomedan ~aw is a ~ivil contract. Hence it should attract all the
1nc1dents of contract a~ any ot!ie~_ stipul~te~.1n t~e Contract Act. The provisi9_!1s of s. 64
of the -~~_!).~act =Act, will be squarely applicable to a case such as the present onewli'ere
the marriag~ has been rescinded _uajlaterally. The provi~~~ns ~of s.. 6~,of. ~e Contract Act
are c~ear .in this bt?half and require only that person to return ,the benefits ·under the
Contract, at whose opinion7 •
the contract 1s rescinded Mahmad Usaf Abasbha{Bidiwdle v· .t • ' ., ' ·' •.
Hurbanu Mansur Atar. .>·--
4 .. • ,. • •· r .. • • ,.
' •
) i \ • ,
• •
1
• • I
• .
'
•
I
'
-
: :
- •
/ ;
f
• 'I' . ••
)
, l
' I
•
·-
'
~-
i' f·• J rf 1'"·
I!' I
,- •
/
• J ; i
. -~
t'1 -' • •j
. , -'
i , ' f .I . f

-(2) Lunatics and minors who have. not att~ned puberty may; be validly
! • ; I,. ' ' " .,

contracted in marriage by their respective guardians (§270-275).l,

• I fl,- • '
1
f J ' ,c I ·• •' • r '• )
.
<> r,' \ l
....I / \) I • ••
-, ,t.\
' !•
1:

.i:,
i
1
.,-.,

f '
.
-

(3) A marriage. of ·a Mahomedan' _who. is of sound qrind _,and_ has.attained

¥ / #

puberty, i~_y9Jd, if it i~ brought about witl.iQ~~ hl.~~~9_µ~en\~-···, .. , > i1··.": - ,· 1 .. •

', '
Th~;srune.rule applies i~ th~·:c~~e
• _, ; , .., r •~ ' , , I
of ;a-~giri'~ii~_ha~ att~~bci pub~~Y-~:::. :·. ,.· .•• ·'
.. 1 • r-'-".,,,.... .;J... ,1. I. t '
1
.c. 1 _ , , ' ,- .~ • 1 • ' • 't,: • '

• Explanation.-Puberty is . pr{}_sumed,: •in •the abs~nc~ ' of evid~il~~~. on

completion of the age of fifteen year~.. t' "}'.,·!.:· .,' ·,., .t' ':· .I' • ',, .' - ,'.,l I : • '

Hedaya, 529; Baillie, 4 Note_ that the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, ,1875, do
not apply to matters relating t~ marriage, dower,. a~d 'divo,rce: A Mahome~an ~if_e who
• _,,,' ,~• ~~,_,f.,1,.•,.1 1 , " ' 1 ·~ . , \ l , , J . ~ 4 ,

i •, .
·ve oc·
an
J ' • L • - •• ,c • ,
• I • • ' • • . ! • ' J : , • " , '

, •4. Nikah, in ·certain circumstances, is obligato~ Sunnah.(muwakkadah). If one is ~PP!eh~~ er to

his committing adultery, inspite of his being capable of providing maintenance ~d paymg owu-act
a woman, Nikah, for him is obligatory (wajib). He will be committing a sin i_f he does no:t~ne is
marriage. (Nizam Burhanpuri,-Al-Shaykh: Fatawa Alamgiriyyah, Deoband, n.y.vol_. Il. Pi •biJil is
apprehensive of transpressing. the limits of God (Huquq .All~) ,in marriage, NikahN.~~ haS a
•·.. . abominable (Mukruh). Accordin~ to 1?e saying of the compan•?~s of ~e J>I:ophe\ ·~' .. 229;
··preferences over superatogatory ntuals 1.e. Naff Prayers. (Al-Badru-al-Sanru, Carro, vo •. P. __
5. Mahmad UsafAbasbhai Bidiwale v. Harbanu Mansur Atar. (1978) Mah. U. 26. : SahaY JJ.].
6. Md. Idris v. State_ of Bihar. 1980 Cri U. 764, [Nagendra Prasad Singh and Muneshwan , ,',, .•
7. (1978)Maha.U.26. ,. • ,'":.,,·· ·, . f t ·, , · ·.·,_. ~MohiddinV,
8. Hassan Kutti v. Jainabha (1929) 52 Mad. 39, 113 I.C. 306, ( 28) A.M. _1285, Say. . .· ! ,
Khatijabai (1939) 41 Born. L.R. 1020, 185 I.C. 390, ('39) A.B. 489. •/·. r, •.. ·., ;,. ' · '
 .I a ,narriage
j• l I i.'. l §252 331
·als OJ
pseflll . & d. .th
ube~d is under ~ighteen years of ag~y fil~ a suit 1or 1vorce ~~':1t
as atUU~ed penLcif.-a next fyie11_d. 9 (see notes to § 115 abov~) 1 •

~e aP~-nc~ io a girl the Judicial Committee _observe~ that .the age of puberty in
with, refer~aw is nine ears. 10 Their Lordships were no doubt referring to the passage
?Jaho(lled~ya a _e ~arl~est p_erio?,.. pub~rty. with respect t'? a bl?Y is -~elve ~~ars
:11 tfie .,, pect to a gtrl_ts
- ......rune
_ ye.ars.
1
,,..dwith res -~ . ,• .
an , .~-~- • '
Consent to marriage obtained by force or fraud
n consent to a marriage has been obtained by_forc~ or fr~d, the marriage is invalid
Wbe •t is ratifieq} 1 Where consent to the marriage has no! been obtai~ed,
un}e~~~:,,ation against the will o( ~he woman will not validat~ the marriage. 12
consuio..- ' ' I I ' • V '
I I,.\ ( r t \ I t \ •

• • §252. Essentials of a marriage It is essential to the validity of a

arriage that there should be a proposal· made by or on behalf of one of
%e part,ies to. ~he m~a~;~, ~n accepta~ce ,of t~e proposal by or on
behalf of the otheJ, m the_p_re~~~ce _angJ\~ari..ng of two ip.a:l_e_Q[ on,e JnaJe
and two female w1tnesse~.,~l!Q_!Uust be sane aI?,~~E!l!LMah_q!ll~c!.anJ. The
proposal, and .acceptance ,must both .be expressed at •one mee§.n~; a
O'rop.Q!~ad~ at_one ~eet_ing ~nd an acceptance.made at another meeting
~.do not· co~_§titute _a Yllid maf!iag~. Neither writing nor any religious
ceremony 1s essential.
./'
!' ' ,1 '·
I •. ,.
SYNOPSIS
I I !1 r , • I
1. • •. r I,
. Sbafei school 332 Registration of marriage • 332
Registration of marriages 332 Nik~ by phone, video conference and
Shia law 332 internet 333
M.ahomedan Law-''Mahomed an'' - Who is - Hi~du ~onveit, - If to perform rites
or necessaries to become a Mahomedan. _ .! , , , , 1 • l .. •., , 1- • • ..•..,

Under Mahomedan Law <~II.~li~on, ~ere is no parti.GulaLceremony .or.ritualf.ru:._c_ooyersto~•

Any person wlio professes Mahoµiedan religion ancfacknowledges that there is but one God
and _Mohammad is his prophet is a Mahom~. It is not necessary that he should observe any
particular rites or ceremonies or be an orthodox believer in the religion. 14 , • ' , -
,· ' · r • • ,- • l - , • • .. , , 4 /

For a description· of the regular procedure ·for obtaining the consent of the girl and th~
1

usual, form in which th~ prop<?s~ an~ acceptance is gon~ through- wh~re the women ai:-e in
I

9 • ,,
I
', I , • .

'.JJ
,

_,,
t

• ,j
."
1
'
t
.
• '
J

I
l

• ' •• '
.

I
I J

I
II '

\ I • ,)
• Na~eta~ Bibi v. Habibar Rahman (1948) 50 C.W.N. 689, ('48) A.C. 66. . ,•
10
u· Sadiq Ali ~ha~ v. Jai Kishori (1928) 30 Born. L.R. 1345, 1C9 I.~. 38:, ('28) A.P.C. 152. •.
1

• Abdul Latif v. Nyaz Ahmed (1909) 31 All. 343, 1 I.C. 538 [wife's illness concealed]; Kulswnbi v.
12 Abdul Kadir (1921) 45 Born. 151, 591.C. 433, ('21) A.B. 205 [Pregnancy Concealed]. ' •
• Mt. Ahmad-un-nissa Begum v. Ali Akbar Shah (1942) 199 I.C. 531, (' 42) A. Pesh. 19; Jogu Bibi v.
zesal Shaikh (1936) 63 Cal. 415 relied on; Abdul Kasem v. Jamila Khatum Bibi (1940) 1 Cal. 401,
13 C.W.N. 352, 188 I.C. 490. ('40) A.C. 251. . ' •1 1 ' • • l' • ' •

• t~g Kyi v. Md Shwe Baw (1929)'7 Rang. 777, 121 I.C 718, ('29) A.R. 341; Jogu Bibi v. Mesa/
A ikh (1936) 63 Cal. 415, 164 I.C. 957, Pakistan: Muhammad Zaman v. Naima Sultan ('52)
14. S • Pesh. 47. See also, A. Abdul Rahim v. Julaiga Beevi, (2001) 2 MU 822. •\ , , •• '
l_ed Amanullah Hussain v. Rajammae (1977) 1 An. W.R. 123; (1976) 2•A.P.U.1 323, [Alladi
uppus\,Yamy, J.]. :, , :-_ . , , ,. ' ,• , •
 332 §252 Chap. XIV-Marriage, Maintenan
ce of Wives andR .
estuu,;Ora,
ee
purdab S the--und --
ermentioned .Ease. 15 But it· wa
- s held by the Oudh C
proposal and_ ac.c.e.ptance need not rbe m • • ~111-::ir fnr rn Oun n,..
'It.
ev ide ~o f the conse~t of the 3! 1. LJ 'fi ll~ ,. In this -
cas
girl and that the husband ~ad e'---~~~
_ was held that und~r the c~rcum a~~eed to the do ~
stances ~te r t~e lapse of a long
, the fonnalities required sho'1ld after the _c~ •
be presumed to have been ~o
\ where th~ person who pe~orm ~plied .ID.th 1~agc an
~d the ni~ h ~_as dead1 the evi
, enough to prove the nil«ih and den
1t was held that the exact words ce· of _a.wi~!llllariy,
\ need not be proved)-7 of offer and css Yias
- ,,, ' .
I . I acccp~
Shafei school I I

• Toe consent at mania es

b of the wife. Th e~ on ly c~m
the b~ ~- Mu~'"!.~flbr_ahim v_. municates th .
yhul~m Ah- m~4, 1s is not
.._,
~oo d law. An adult virgeinwish
Shafe1 school can ~1ver herself of of
because thuathe~onsent...._w m mam~ge ~o ug h a walt ~c!_~e m_
as _pot _obtained. 1• The wall s pow ~~: _.!S not inv
authoriifof. ~~:"'91!1~· S~e ma ers emanate-from-alid
y choose a_ rem?l~ relati~e as wa
one w~o 1s ~c al t(!her_µiteres ll in preference 10-;-lll
gir l-. Sh~ei and Maliki schools ~t A mamag~!~~C?.~.yaltd.un!es_~ c~n~ented to be an :
hold that the consen~ must be giv
•

Under Hanafi law, the woman can

- -----
--· en through waii-..;:
_... J_, _, ... ~ - - -
a
give consent wit~ or without a wa ' - - - , , ; , , ,
Hedaya, 25, 26; Baillie, 4, 5, 10, li. ?~ ,
myself to you," and that of accept 14. Th e usual form of propos
ance is, "I have consented; . al is, "I have married
, ., )
J I ;

Registration of marriages
,
As to registration of Mahomeda
of 1876 read with Act VII of 190 n marriages, see the Kazi' s Act, 1880, and Bengal Act I
5.
. . ' 1 Ii
/S hi al aw I

• According to the Shia law the .

regarding marriage: Baillie, II 4. presence of witnesses is riot necessary in any matter
'
' , • , 1 '.
• -i 1
.,
J

'
. : , Registration of
I
marriage ' ' ' II
Muslim La ; does not req~ire
registration·-~f ~¥ria~e as' a
marriage. On the other hand, Mu .;eq
slim Law never prohibits registr ui~jte for _a valid
Muslim marriage can be proved ation of mam~ge. A
by
by establishing prolonged continu direct evidence 1or in' the 'absence of direct eV Id:
ous colabition or acknowledgm
ledgment that a particular woma by_ the_man °rder
paternity ~f the child or the acknow ent'
to assur~~per_J.!!QQe of P_!0.9f
proof ?f mamag~ _11).a~he made 1
n is his ~f? '
]viuslimjn ~1:1. 3:e~-~~y_-d~~ice_ ~-p
r~e~s, by.~!!.~ of
~iihe
time, 1t develops into a·custom easie~?-_ namely, by !~~1.s~~~~?,?_~Y :J~t_!}. )n coersonal
,
Law. The custom would"becom a valid custom which is not v10lattve of the _P and
e invalid only if it is sought to
,l
I •
be made mandatory
I • I• I
~ • \\ ,
\ ' r ,
/
15. Mt. Ghulam Kurbd Bibi v.
Mo
16. Mt. Bashiran v. Mohammad hammad Shaffi (' 40) A. Pesh. 2. 1 1 IC l6l, ('4ll
Husain (1941) 16 Luck. 615, (19
A.O. 284. 41) O.W.N. 249, 193, • •
17. Alamgir v. The State (1956) ., ,1 , ·, 1 1 ' ' ... •
35 Pat. 93, 98-99.. , "· ,, A 1 111 .. ,
18. (1862) Born. H.C.R. 236. , ••
19. Kummali Abubukker v. Ven ,, : . • 1
gatt Marakkar ('70) A. Ker. 277
. .I l v_ • •
 §253 333
larand void ma.rriages
·d, ;,,egu
falI Ac t
son al ~w . Th e Mu slim Per sonal Law (Shariat) Application
. , Jative of the Per ch cus tom or usage are no;
dJUS Yl:oes not abrogate any
cus toµi,o r usag~_as _long_as__!u -· -- -- •- -~ - -- •
1932"" to the Person al Law .,
. , ,
conu"'1 . h h M us1·Ims In
e the are a had dev eloped it as a custom to have
:t is estabbshed t at t of a customary
of will_i,~g p~r son s t? b~ ~eg ist~red, it assumes the charac,ter
on ~ag e t. 2 • . . ,1 • - - - ·- - .,_

the rn d not a mere -contractual ngh

n'ght an
V • '
1
• I t
I • • (

e and internet : .1
Nikah by ph on e, video co nferene
< • , ,

tract but
rria g~ und er Mu sl_im La ~ is g:n era lly presumed as a civil con
fbough the ma n a_ ~~e. deed as _the
age (nik a~) Is more ~omple~ tha
as rnanY a time, the ma tter of _mam and reqmres two wit nes s~. The
drrect proposal of
fonner involves~~- aspect of I~~dat e~ con ferencing and
marriage --and pronounce?1~!1t
of acceptance O!} intemej, vid
cas an' attorney is
e
ver y reh ab,!$, Ho wever, nikah will be valid in_
telep hone ,is !}9t two parties make
inted for nik ah pro cee din gs on these electronic m~dia .and the om 9. In such
appo
nce con sen t bef ore their witnesses on beh alf o(_the att
proposal and pro nou appointed as
the wit nes ses sho uld hav e been familiar_ with the person mentioned
an arrange men t ntial address which is
attorney or his name,.. with his fath er's21nam e and reside . . ,- - . , . ;
-
al and acc ept anc e. _ , , , .J f. ' . • , '
pos
1,1
at the time of pro • 1
I.•
1. .,,.,. "''
L
I r

marriages, A··marriage may_ be

I • I
. ; I
, I ' ' l
at ..

§253. Valid, irregular ·and void· m the beginning (batij).

I I '
' 1

fro
valid (sa hih), or irregular (fasid), or void .
- • --- j I•,.~~• "'• t• • , f -

l . '\I
• f
:
•; If
••..•i l ;..
-Ir

.'
• ,•, , .

marriages:..'., 1
; / \, f
t
,
1 n • :·. :.· -, 1 Irregular or inv
alid • . I' '

,u:n
the wor~ "in v~i d"
1 r
.. !, •
jlli ~)__Dig~st_as "in.":_alid," but as
The term "fasid" is' translated iri Ba n sub sti~ ted for
."vo ~," irre ~l_ ar'. ' ·and, has ~ee
the_ 1:,n~lish lang~age ~lso. me jnsge-of"modem wnters _on the _sub~ct. A~ to rrregular
mv ~d m confomuty with_ the
usa 0,}0-262)
to 259 and §26 3. (As to·void mfilliages, see §26
~g e_ s, see §254 !
••

if she; is' given in

'

girl who has att~ ned puberty ,-,

,.

s
#
"

The Marriage I 'of Sha fei vir~in

I f

• ·,
l marriage m··a proper form is valid. z- ·,. • •
· •
the
a~~ Ko ya, 23
. ;u~ stio n of_ validit
y ~f marriage· came ~p befor~ s
In A'!'!~_v .__ !las running 5t~ mo nth
the time marriage the girl was icult to conceal the
Supremf: Court. rn· that case: at h stage of pregna ncy , it wa s diff
pregnancy..,' The Court held that ·at suc band was npt aware about the pregnancy at the
ed tha t hus
~e and it cannot be believ of the pregnancy, he had. en~ered _int ,
~ the marriage
w led ge
time of ~~a g_s ..-\Y ith full kno
cha, llenge the validity, of,· the same.
_
~e~ efor e,
and ' I ,,r l I\· • 'lie cou ld not late r on ,......,.. , • •

rriage that the

1
-

ween the parties at the time of maband ~ccepted

11· .

a doc um ent was exe cut ed bet

_Where, hus
band prior to the- marriag_e, and the
;•fe bec ~e pregnant from the hus e delivered the child on the day of the mam..age, the
Ce Paternity of the child, and the
wif _nancy at such an
n hel d-th at it wo uld. hav ·e bee n impossible.-to conceal th~ preg with full knowledge
adou d entering the ma ma ge
f van ced stag_s:, and it means that the husban y of the same. 24 •
validit
Pregn~cy cannot later cha•llenge the
0 .. I'
'· .,..,-
. ·. I l l '
I

I' I
--- .:, ' • ' r-

20 n and othe rs (200 0) 2 M.L .J. 714.

Kha
21• ~- ~ainoon v. M. Ammanullah
if
• 11
an Ulema, p. 7 IFA publication.
22• OCial Issues Decision of a Indi
1 '' (

.
23• Muhammad Haji Kaminu v.
Ethiyamma (1967) Kerala L.T. 913 I I 1

_•
2-1: A.I.R. 2003 sew 249 6. . 1 • ' ..
' .f
. •• , . 1 , , • •
A.I.R. 2007 (NOC) Born 658
334 §254 Chap. XN -Ma rria ge, Maintenance of
Wives and Re s,j ~
" 1/§ 25 4.. Abse!1ce of wi ~~ ses
·A
witne~seLas required_l?Y §is 2 1s _1rreg~lar~ marriage_ co?tracted 'Iii
but not vo1~~. , ,Ji •. .
Bailli~, ~55. As .~o i~egular marriag~s, II: d ' •

see alsoJ~6
1 1.and ~671 belo~~i ·:.~ •
' • ' I

§255. Number of wives A Mahomeda l

. '

I ' I ' '.

• I '
I j

n ~a y have as many • .
wives at the same time but not more. If
he
already four, the marriage is not void, but mames a fifth wife whe f~
merely•irregulai:2: n Chas
Baillie, 30l 't54 (fourth.class); Ameer
11

Ali, 5th ed.,;Vol. II,'p : 280.' 1As'to'•

marriages, see §262 an' 'd 267 . ' .' , ,· ' , , , ,, , ,
, , . • •, • 1 ; . .' •, 1• • 1 ,. i 1 • IITeonl~
, «>"._ I , .. .1 1 ' , .- , 1
1 •

• • §256. Plurality of husband~ It _is.

' ' ' I
I
"i i , IC , ! (I •
not l"w~~ for Mahomedan
l I,. l ( '

~oman to have more than one hus~and I~,

at the same time. A marriage With

a. wo~an,. who ~as .he~ _husband al!Xe and
him; 1s void.26..,..,,,, h,as t:iot, b~en _divorced by
,,,,,. ·' • , •1 • .!l ,, • ' ., 'f , • . - ••
•I
,

'
1
•
1 ,. l \J '· It q'

A Mahomedan woman marrying aga 1

in in the lifetime of hei: husbandJ~

pun!!.h~ l_;lnder s. 49,4 of the-1ndian
Pen aJ.s.ode.2: The off-spring _of_ sue~ ~
ill~ !~m a~21r and c_~E~!2~~~gitillla!~~ e is
Y. ac ~~ g~ ~~ t2~~,344(~)). ~· ;' :- :~::·
' . , · . ,, . I ' , •. :- •... ',
• • .,.
I \ti \,) l ., ,., i 1 i J ··1 1 1-~ ~I• 1 1.J } , Jq") . ,..... I
§257. Marriage with a woman_ underg •J
,.. ' • _,- " ...J L
'tJ
.\ ' ' •\

with a woman before,com12letion· of_lier 1 oin g id,d at (1) A marriage 1

Lahore High Court at oire- tiine ,treated idq gfi s ~g y4 rr, no ~d .

suih marriage&~~~;y9jd; but in a
a
1

later. decision held that such ·marria _

~I

legitimate.3~ _>' 1
J
ge ris. iireg~lar.1 and. the,. ch!ldren
1
I •\' '', ' ,l (. '·
1 i\' • U '. w·-; p ;·-::11 1 l'l ,j '.\;.:
rr· - 1. _ '. •
• 1 • • h; ../. > ' c"' -'· ' ,_r· •? < c:. ~- . . . • :
';I(2) ld da !.- ~: maY.~~e q.e~c~ped,,~s
incumbent up(?~-~ woman, whose ma the p_e4~d-~uring ~,lr lc~ ~
rriage has been-.dissolyeg by ~vorce
or dea~h tCLiemain ~D-~ s~c;.lu~jpD; an<;\
husband-71'he abstin~~ce is impose 1 t~, aq~tain fr9,m,,
d_t~sc~rtaj.~whethe~ she 1s_pre~
by ~~ -~~ sb~ d; so as~ to_ avoid1c~nfus
margage 1s· d1 s~ ~d 1v orc ~,- -th e __~~r i~~ . .~~l!t~ge.,: When 7s
at~~t\~f._!h~ ~5!~]_)1~ ~e. ;.~ ~~
subj~~ ~o m~ti~~~!i9~;-is
lunar months. If the woman~~~ 1s
~.;~9,~ts.~;}f sh,~ ,t~ ,so
pregnant at tlie time, the penod. t~rn 1t.1,s.~
• ' • ' l •I
un , I .... '
1,-r •t ' • '
1 , v ;' • ' ,
• ,I
25.' Shahulameeda'v. Subaida Bebee
' ' . , ,. ...• .. # ' ./ '
l

(1970) M.U, Cr. 1562:-•I J:I ~.;:\!~:

26. Liaqat ·Ali v. Karim-un-nissa (1893 r:_i • " <. ~~l)481> 1

) 15 All. 396,398; Habibur Rahman. v.

ansa _v.iFatma Bi (1914) 26 Mad.. L.J, 260La 21 c. 691. 1J
114; 121, 48 Cal. 856, 60 I.C. 837; Bud Al~af Air ~
• . the matter of Ram Kumari (1891) }l. 440•59LC
18 Cal. 264 ,269 ; Nandi v. The (:rown
33; Government of Bombay v. Ganga (18~ (_1920) 1 . , , : ·,
0) 4 Born, 339, _, . 1._, , r
1) 18 Cal. 264; Nandi v. The Crown (192 111 1 • '440; ea,,i,I •
27. In the matter of Ram Kumari (189
E~peror~'31) A.~. 194, _134 I.C. 589. 0) 1 Lah, 2fJ',
28. Liaqat Ali v. Karim-un-mssa (189 . 26M ad-lJ ·
3) 15 All. 396, 398; Budansa v. Fat!fUJ
231.C.679. Bi (19l 4) ... ,·
. . ~ I ' ·' :.('.i .;~1, 1 ,'. il, 1, \1->,
29. (189 3)15 All. 396 ,sup ra. 1:,. / .• ,d .'t,-, •. : .. ·~
,. .. ·, / ·11, . ,, ,,., t); ·.-,,L ·r,,~··
30. Jhandu v. Mst Hussain Bibi (1923). 1 1 • -~;;,v,iJogfi
4 Lah. 192, 73 I.C. 590, ('23) A.L..949;
(1935) 1571.C 779, ('35) A.L. 23. M~:~ ,.. '. 1 •
31. Muhammad Hayat v. Muhammad () ....
Nawaz (1935) 17 Lah. 48, 156 I.C, 40, ( I/ .J 622·-'' ·,
35) A. •
 §257 335
. e with a wom an und erg oing idd at
1,1arri0 8
by de_aJ'!; the dur atio n of
uPon delivei:Y- Wh en the ma rria ge is dis sol vedwo ma n is pregnant at the
the
the iddat, i~ fou ~ montp.s a@ t e ~ If or u~til delivery,
~ ten
time, the idd__~~ J?sts_ J9r __f~u r ~o nth s _and ••
whicheve~.P-~E!o1 1s !o.~g_e~
wife is bou nd to observe the
1

If the marriage is dis sol ved by dea th, the

, , • -..,ttn '

;ddat whether t~e ma rria ge .~a s con sum

ma ted or not. If the marriage wa s
observe the idd at only if the
dissolved by1 div orc e, she ts bou nd to
no consummation, there is no
marriage was con sum ma ted , if the re wa s • .
;ddat, and she is fre e to ma rry immediate
ly.
'
t •
at of div orc e com me nce s fro m the date of the divorce; and tha t
·Toe idd
dea th from the dat e of dea th. If info rma tion of divorce or of death does
of
of the period of idd at, she is
not reach the wif e unt il afte r the expiration
].
not bound to obs erv e any idd at [Baillie; 357 ,
r
, 352 -358 . As to idda t in the case of an irre gula
, Hedaya, 128 -129 ; Bai llie, 38, 151
11 1

marriage, see §26 7f (2)( ii).

• , '
" ' ' •
I 11

1
' • • 1

SYNOPSIS
r , ,, 1 ) •,..-. r • 335
335 I Valid retirement
Marriage durin g idda t
,r , .
., , 11 1 ; Ma rria ge dur ing iddat _
',J '
f, .
riage
divo rces A afte r consummation of the mar
•. H has four wi~ es, A, B, C and D. He nor to H to marry ano ther
issi ble to A to mar ry ano ther husband,
with__her. It is not perm
wife;duringjA's idda t. Nor is it perm issi
1 ble to H, if
ng
of the othe r wives· dies duri A's
pletion of
one
,iddat, to mar ry A's 'sister (§26 3). But '
eith er part y may marry, agai n afte r com
t, is to
and H may , if he cho oses , mar ry A's sister. The primary obje ct of idda
~•s i~da t, raint
se a rest rain t on the mar riag e of the wife , but this involves a corresponding rest
unpo ever, be
0 ~ the mar riag e also of the hus ban d to
the exte nt mentioned above. It must, how
plet~on of the idda t is not void , but me.rely
~emembered tliat a mar riag e befo re com •
/ITegul~. As to irre gula r mar riag es see §264: and 267.
r,
,
~- - ,.
rt~·1 . •
• ·,
J •• •
Val id retirement .

ent no
toge ther und er circumstances which pres
,. I .J -
•

' When the husb ~nd and wife are 'alone to be in "va lid
marital intercourse, they are said
le~al, moral or phy sica l imp edim ent to the sam e lega l
retir eme nt in the Sunni law has
retirement" (khilwat-us-sahiha). A vali d blis hme nt of
dower, [§267, 336(2)], the esta
effect. as actu al. con sum mat ion as rega rds wife 's maintenance during iddat (§27 9), the
a
paternity~ the obs erva nce of idda t (§257), in
wif e's siste r (§26 3), and the bar of marri~ge imp osed by the rule
bar of mar riag e with the bar of
as• actual con sum mau on as regards
§255. But it has not the sam e effe ct rcee s
1), or the bar of re-marriage betw een divo in
marriage with the wif e's dau ghte r (§26 stat ed
t hav e bee n actual con sum mat ion as
[§336(4)]. In both thes e case s ther e mus
§261 and 33 6- (5): Baillie, 98-1 01.
•- l ' • • .. . . . •:
I '

192.
32. Jhandu v. Hussain Bibi (192 3) 4 Lah.

\
\
 336 §258 Chap. XN-M arria ge, Maintenance of Wives and Restitutio
n, etc.
~25 8. Marriage between a Sunni and Shia r A Sunn
i male. rn
·l, ,

contract a valid marriage with) a Shia1 female. 33 and a 1 Shia

'male rnay
contract a val1.d marn.age wit
. . h a Sunru• 1ema
"' 1e. 34• . • • •
., , ay 1
1• .J , •

. . J , r.
The rights and obligations of the wife would be governed.
I •,• • , 1

by the law; to, Which ( h'

belonged at the time of her marriage. (see §32) • ' ., • 8
• , ·; , e
_ ¼ J I
• • I • ,. I • 12' I t '- • Ii
• , . •• 1J " . , , , •
§259. Difference of religion, (1) A Mahomedan male.may
cont;a~t-~
valid marriage not only with a Mahomedan woman,· but
also with
Kitabia, that is, a Jewess or a Christian, but not .with an idola
tress or a fire~
~orship~er. A marriag~, ho~ev~~, .~\t~ ID?- ,i~o.~atr s"'s, ?r ftri~-~
IS i;i9tlvo1d, but merely ~~g~l~·,r,,
7 ?f~hi~per,
1
111 .l:'J' ,I ·(11'. I I I ' ,, I I'
, ', ' J l) .- I i t; \: SYNOPSIS • • •: )J I lI
, '. l ,I
Kitabi .·338 Shia.law \,\ ( • ;f,
1

Indian Christian Marria e Act, 1872 '338

. . 338
. • . I • •• ( ' • •'
~; J ' • , , J - I
l . ,. - rI • • I
Under Muslim Law, marnage between a Musb m male
• I • • ", • ( •• l I J

and a Christian female is not

• • • •• • ' • • \'

void or illegal. The prohibition is only against a Muslim woma

ri ~arry ing a non:Muslim.'
There is no difference betw een the' case' ' .. , ,.
of a Musl im wom an who after marriages
renounces Muslim faith, and the case of'a non- Musl im
wom an who· embraces Islam,
marries a Muslim and then commits apostasy. The same
consequences must follow
apostasy in both the cases. No doubt' the' marriage betw
een a Muslim male and a
Christian is not ~ec~ared, yoid unde~ Musl i~ Laf. Bu~ ~o
~xc~p!ion_ i& m~de in regard
to. the consequences of apostasy in .,sHch c_asY.~:, It i~. ~owh
ere ,aid 1down specifically
t~~t eve~ .after conversio~ o~ ~u~g ~ .~usl!I11r.W!(~ !?-,~~
would subsist. Merely because the.marriage,between a
1 r~s!ia1 ;1 Jaith,~ the,m ~age
Musl im and a non-Muslim of
Kitabia •faith
• ' .,. l

is not void, it does not necessarily follow that on the apost

• I •
.J I I I . • .. ' > '-.;l ' \ l • I • J
I •
t • asy of one of
,th~ pa_rtie,~ 1to the marriage, ~he I?~~;ag~ s~all s~and:not,d
1
• t f ' t
I , • •~ •

is,solv
\ •

.wife was a Christian or Muslim prior to her,m arriag e has .~d. )V~ 7t~er a.~u s~
no bearing on the question
as to 'the ~onsequence of the aposta~y ori"' one 'or'_ the partie
• ,
s to' 1the..., marria ge~ All the
texts are uniform and all the scholars and comm
., • - , ,
1 i
i.,...., ,
.. , .. , ., •
•
J _, 1 •
entators on Musl im law agree that in
the case of apostasy of the wife, the marri~ge shall stand
dissol~ed. N~ exception to
this view has been stated. Whet her she re-embraces her
original faith or embraces a
new faith, it is nonetheless an apostasy. Apostasy being
acceptance of any o~er faith
by a Muslim, the consequence of apostasy must be the
the marital relations of Musl ims: • same on the continuance of
••• ,
•' • tl ,, • • • , • •• .. '. • ' I • • • I • j
. ,, ., I J, •.: ·I•-! 11.J l] 1JI,. \.
· In the instant case, admittedly' the third defendant embr
aced the Christian 'faith in tbe
year 1952. i.e., prior to the extension of the Muslim Disso
lution of Marriages ·Act, 1939•
·Toe marriage, therefore stood dissolved in that year and
is not saved by that enactroe~t.
Consequently the third defendant's right to recover the dowe
r due to her commenced_ tn
•1952.' The suit instituted in 1968 was, therefore, barred
by time, though; in fact, she was
entit• 1ed to i't. ' , . , .. , ,( I. ·' I . ;. I ,.,, t - • •
I; I J • •
,.' ' I

I!,{ ,,I , 1 1'J

• , , I , , .f , ••
,,_ • ,. ·-· • ·, I , I .,, 1 il 1
.J
j f I f,~•
I • \\
• 1 ) J' • I • - _· .t I
.I J ti\, , .. l.11 i I
•\'

33. Syud Gholam Hossein v. Musst. Setabah Begum (1866)

6 W.R. 88; Aziz Banq v. Muhammad (1 92S)
47 All. 823, 891.C. 690, ('25) A.A. 720. •
34. Nasrat Hussain v. Hamidan (1882) 4 All. 205. ---
- - --·-·- - -· - ----- -
35. Jshan v. Panna Lal (1928) 7 Pat. 6, 103 J.C. 430, ('28)
A.P. 19. , . I, , 1
1 "•' ·• • ' -' •
 ' .. §259 337
. nee of religion
oiffe~ .
. f the provisions· in the Caste Disabilities ,Removal Act, 1850, the Musi~
O
111 Vlew ' ersi·on to Christian faith does not deprive her of the right to claim a share 1n
' 's conv • • • 36
wom~ •·d's 'matruka, when she does not marry any one. else. 1
busbaD 1 1 1 • • •

~~-, ·: • Validity - Marriage of Muslim male, with Christian female -;validity. ,

• aroage -;--:;- , -• • • •
37
M . ge between a Muslim male and a Christian female is not invalid. , , ' I' ' r •
A rnarna ,
38
aria Mudgal, Pre~ide~t, Kalyani v. Un~o.n of lndia, the Apex C~u~ has held that a
In~ which is, in v10lat1on ,of any prov1s1on of law would be void 1n terms of the
rnarnag:n used under s. 494 of the IPC. so: a marriage between a Muslim and a non-
:~~: spouse should be decided according to justice, equity and good consdenc~.
39
In Lily Thomas, etc. v. Union of India, .. the, Supre~e Court has held that change of
ligion does not dissolve the marriage performed under the Hindu Marriage Act or
:tween two Hindus. A married Hindu contracting second marriage after professing
Islam, despite his conversion would be guilty of offence punishable under s. 17 of the
Hindu Marriage Act read with s. 494 _of t~e. ,_ IPC, 9ecause mere conversion does not
autom~tically dissolve his_ first marriage.: , , , ,. , ,
'·' It is a settled principle of law that to prove a' conversion from one religion to another,
'two elements need to be sati~fied. First, there has· to be conversion and second,
acceptance into the community to which the person has converted. It is obvious that the
need of a conversion cannot be altog~ther done away with.40 • :.
Every person has a complete liberty to forsake his previous religion and to convert
~elf tq ano$er 'religion. There can be. various reasons which can prompt ,a person to
change his/her religion but, when one. changes his religion, then· such a change should
come from one's heart based on his change of faith and his detennination to embrace the
new religion with complete faith, belief and consciousness. Conversion from one religion
to another religion in, any case is a , solemn; pious and noble act i with, far reaching
consequences and it cannot be seen as an ·exercise •undertaken by someone as a mere
pretence to achieve some limited objective or purpose. Nobody can be seen to change
his/her religion just to seek a membership or'a library. There cannot be any divergence of
opinion that· in certain situations ·one of the parties to the marriage belonging to one
• • ' d , • t I I I I J l

~eligion can take a decision to embrace the'religion of the other party but however such a
conve~si~n should not be 'undertaken ~erely to achieve the purpose of marriage, it should
be done ~o. embrace the religion with a will and desire to completely follow the
tenets of the new religion while simultaneously forsaking the tenets of the religion being
professed by a person prior thereto.41 • 1 1 , f •
I '

Therefore, regarding the purpose and objective of the conversion, the present editort is
1
.~ so ?tthe same opinion as expressed by the Court in the above case.
42
. .. • •
..,,..,.,-'.Jl Jl1,('l, .',, },:fi" r;i IfL1li 1 J,, ,J,J • '., '-~ 1 ,l !\.: - • j
:•1,1. ·,
... ' • II' I L l J' 'y ( I r• '! .I I:. , I I~ )
0

, I J :. '' i '. ; I .', : I r) r r . ; i I. l I

36
' ·, ~aneez Fatima v. Mrs. Angeal Cameron alias Siraj Sulthana (1978) 2 A.P. U. 337 [Madhava
37 ~dy and Narasinga Rao, JJ.]. ... 1 1 !• . • , ,• , , .
, •. ~aneez Fatima v. Mrs. Angeal Cameron alias Siraj Sulthana (1978) 2 A.P.L.J. 337 [Madhava
38., ~dy and Narasinga Rao. JJ.]i 1 , ,, , ,. • 1 , 1 1 , i , , • ·'
39 1995 SC 1531. , i . 1..,. "-. J l.1 • . 1
40' 2<X>?<5)JT(SC)617. . . , '· . ') . , • .J.

41:.• ~~-·Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu & Anr (2010) 9 SCC 712. -·. , • • .

1,t Tbheem_~hmad_ v. Maria @•Lux~i_LNIND 201~ DEL 494 ~p:11'a 17). 1 , , , , •

42. S erev1smgeditorofthe20thedition. i, .. :, 11 .1.. , . i,: • , 1

• _

ee also Kaneez Fatima v. Mrs. Angeal Cameron al,as SiraJ Sulthana (1978) 2 A.P.U. 337. •
 338 §259 Chap. XIV -M arr iag e, Mainte
nance of Wives and Rest·,
l Utto11
.
,, "{2) A Mahomedan' wo ma n can •., ere.
no t co ntr act a va lid marriage exc
a Mahomedan: Sh e can no t I co e .
ntr act a· va lid ma rri ag e ev en wit
tha t is, a Christian or a Jew. h· a-~.w1th
•A· m ~a ge ho we ve r, wi th a no~-M ~t~bi
wheth•er• he is a Kita
• b1,• th at 1s,
• a Ch rist·1an or J 1
an idolator or a fire-worshipper, a ew , or a non- Kitabi th Ush~..,
lh
is irregular, no t void. ; ,,1 . . / at is,
. 'Hedaya, 30; Baillie; 40-42; 151
, 153. • ' \
I
\ , , .:.
• • P~of: A.A.A; Frz ee regru:d
•
l l ' f I I ' 1

s such _a ma pia ge as ,void: ~ee i 1 ! '

.i '

?Pdi~?aln ofd~~dedd1~?ir ~e re _1s fore also §2~(~)(d). infra.·In

JU 1c1 1y ec1 e . ~ 1n.~r?f· Fyz~e s .~~1n10?. How
e~~r~ }t ~ave tot
. . ' I
• As to irregular marriages, see . •, , I
§264 an~ 267. •
\ 11 ,
., I <\
, l
• • • J., , • , 1 r 1 , .,t) I, !.
,
1 • • , I' t> .,; 1. r1
• I
j ' '
,, ·' Kita~l JI L. -·
,',' ·' ,'ti' ,) ,.
1r ,
t.'• Ii, ,irl ·.1· l
f[')
Kitab 'means a book,· that is, a .,
book of reveal' ed r
reli
'
gio n:
r
Kit abi meads a male who
' '
believes in Christianity or Judais
m. Kitabia is a female who· bel
religions. The question whether, ieves in either of these
a Buddhist woman can be regard
~~se before the, P~ vy Council, but ' ed as a Kitabia arose in
it was no~ ~e~i~ed. 43,, L, . r • , • I ' - -
• , • • ;
. ,, , .\ , •. , ,
, ,.j 11 , L Ii.,, ,,
. 1 • •• r• • ., J , ,:in,
Indian Christian Marriage Ac __ ,. 1 ,..
t, 1872., 110, ·1· •
In India, a marriage between
a Mahom~dan male 1and a Ch
solemnized in accordance with ristian l woman m~st
the provisions of ls: 5(4) of the
Act, 1872 (XV• of-1872); that is Indian Christian Marriage
·to;say·, by, or in"the presence 1
appointed under the Act;· any of~ a'Marriage Registrar
such marriage. solemnized otherw
with those provisions "shall be ise than in accordance
voi
valid marriage with a Christian d." Bu t since aMahomedan woman·ciumot contracta
ma n; such.·a marriage, it r would
solemnized under that Act. (se es. , appear, _cannot be
88 of the Act) : ,, , -. , ,, .
, ; 1 • . _;_ 1·
. Th e claim to the property of· r ; ,
; 1 ,
'
• • •.
a
.

bpposite parties contested the sir dar was ma de bv Nathoo

1 • , • •

claim oh 1 the ' gro und °'that she as' his daughter. The
mother Rukko was a Hindu. She , was 'illegitimate. Her
became' the· concubine 'or the ..
was that Rukko has bec om e a sirdar.' Nathoo's case
Mu~liin and her nam e was cha
marriage ·with her Hindu husban nged to Asghari, and the
d
sirdar. In mutation -proceedings was automaticany-' aissolved. She· then ·married the
'the Dir ect or of Consolidation
Although there was no pro of of held,
presumption of marriage.44 ma rriage·, lon g cohabitation was hel in' her f~vo:•
d to ha~~ raise a
·' , 1 1, • • • 1 ,, • -,-· (

.
,, •
'J ,' l • '' ·,' •• l. 1 Sh ial aw '!i 1 '11 .,
.
.f'if ,'(' ,,
. I

'
In the Shia law_, a mania~~ bet • lI i , ,

unlawful and void; and so also is ~ee ~ a M~slim ~al ~ and 'a no~-Musliro fe: ::u :
a marriage betwee.n a Muslim fem
ale and a non-_
43. Abdool Razack v. Aga Mahom I I I \ 1 f I •
f • \ \ ,. l •• • ••

ed
\

Jaff
' 1 "
er
I

(18
_. ,:
\ \

44. Relying on Government of Bom 93) 21 I.A. 56, 64-65, 21 Cal. 666,674. l ii M'lla
i,

bay v. rd in rt,
(1887) 10 Mad. 218 (a case of Rom Ganga (1879) 4 Bern. 330; Madras High Co~rt v. b~ld that the
marriage subsisted. Mst. Nandi an Catholi cs); Ram kumari (1891) 18 Cal. 2~4 .1t "!':
cited. There can be no dissolutv.ion
Crown I.L.R. 1 Lah. 440, (1920
Lah. 379), Amir Ali 0d~ 1 U437 wece
Khatoon v. M. Obadiah 49 C.W
with out a dec ree of Court. Reference was also ~; esha to~
.N. 745 where it was held diss ng from Bibf v.
Subodh Ch. Chakravarty 49 C.\V
.N.''439, (1949 Cal: 436) that enti Musst. t/ (iissOlunon-
However, if the husband had died ther
Nat hoo ('69 )A. All .15 . the result might be different. (Ca e is.n o automa c 8 ,av,s,,,L
',,· se sent back.) Ah';""'•. • •
, 1,. , . , ,·.•~ ,~'! •1i 1
1
:i\· .•• , ·, •
 l conjunction •
I
) §263 339
(111/IJWfil
Muslim male may contract a valid muta marriage (§269) with a Kitabia. The
111
ate, Bu~an fire-worhippers among Kitabids: Baillie, 29, 40.
S~h~-ul-Islam (on which Bail_li~'s _D)g~st Vol. II is based) condemns such
111arriages.
·§260.1 ,Prohibition on the g;~u~d of coqsanguiniti- A man_. is
hibited' from marrying (1) his-mother or his grandmother how high so
pro. (2) his 'daughter or grand-daughter how low so. ever; (3) his sister
ev;rtl}er full, consanguine or uterine; (4) his niece or great niece how low
:0:ver; 'and (5) his au~t or gre~t aunt how high so ~v~r; whether paternal
or matem~. _A ~amage with a woman prohibited •by reason :•of
CO
nsanguiruty is void. • , I 1 ,

Hedaya, 27.; Baillie, 24. As to void marriage, (see §264 and 266 below)
1 r r•l !·.. •,'1 ' • •• l
,,r1; f'. .,, I f
r,.. , ... , } r
~1. 1 1 • 1 ' I
, 1 • )
.•.J 1., {·:;·,tt, . t ~, 1 • /1,1
.I
• t

•••':! IJ f •. , 'lr,~••· ' 1• . : ' 1 • · 010

i '•lf.J • .:t" ,,.,
§261. Proh1b1bon on ground of affin1t~ man is prohibited from
0

marrying (1) ,hts ~ife'~, mot~fr o,r grardm~th.er. h~w ,Wgh so ~v~r; .~2) ~s
wife's daughter or grand-daughter how low so ever;· (3) the rw1fe· of his
1 1

father or paternal grandfJth~r ho~. high 'so ever; and (4) the wife· of his
son, of his son's son or daughter~s son how low so·ever; A marriage·with a
woman prohibited by reason of affinity is. void.1 :. ,i ;~ • ._.- : . •. 11 •- .1 i ;· _-••• 1
·J:

• t i ?, c • ) '• • 1' 1 • 1 ,'\ , ."-: , l •f • . ,, 'l • " , , • ·., 1 f 1 , •• • • i ' •• 1• ' ., • r• , • -

' In case,; (2): . marriage .. wit~ •the wife's •daught~r .or -·grand-daughter, is
consummated.' ;
1

prohibited only if the marriage with the 'wife:.was·

l !
I
I • i- ' ...l L •., I ; . ., f , • /, ... .J ' ,. ( I ; '
.'
,._J'
.•
i..-,.

'
:· Hedaya; 28; Baillie, 24-29, 154.' As to ·void marriage;(see §264 and 266 below) I • •
i' • 'i
• •1 • j ,. 1 • • I •
I ._- . . ,]!' 11 I,.,, 1 _•;-i 1f ';J, '.:· 1 •.! ,• ~'. .'}•.·J ,,rq,,;' •· • , 1 1 1 , 7 , , _. !

•--' , §262. . Prohibition .on·1 the';: ground , of ': fosterage ....,..-Whoever~, is

prohibited by consanguinity ·or affinity is prohibited by reason of fosterage
except certain foster relations, such as sister's foster-mother, or.. foster-
sister's mother, or foster-son's.sister, or foster-brother's sister, with any of
wh~m a valid marriage 'may' be I contracted?.'.Ai ·marriage:~ prohiblted by
reas?noffos_terage is void.,, ,,1 ..J,' .,' 1.JL~ .:_ ... ~.; • ;;:.. JJ , r, . 1. •·
I •• • " • • I , ' I • 'r
0
r 'I

l' Hedaya, 68, 69 Baillie 30 154, 194, 195. As to void marriag~s, (S;;/ §264 and 266
below) ;i·.r_~?' /1\ ,,'1 ,..:fli<J'•;T.lifllJ , 1 Lf1 1n,r, D dtr:, •.. ,l;111 1 :·1l, i·J,
t"''- r,1
.l
• I 'I 1,
11
; I'•
,IIJ!
f &' • r •,
1 ..
f• _.,
,.!, 1 ,\~t.1_._
lwf J •
,(
I iJ_,,.,,d,.,
•t • ,-f J ,.
.
;
. 1,
~'
•- i ,, (
J
I

§263. Unlawful conjunctioIV"A man may not have at .the same time
two wiv~s who are so related to each other by consanguinity, affinity or
fo sterage, that if either of them had been a male, they -could not. have
tawfully intermarri~d,•a~ for instan~~'- ~w?_.sist:~~,-~r aunt and .ni~~~~\Th,~
~- ?i~H~a~~1.-~?~JP~f~I9n re11~~~~ .~'.I?~~g~ l~~g°'1~~",,~?.t ~o~~-, ,. l. \ • ,·;-:.
·1
' I· \I
• • \,!,,,,1
I •
l I ; ~1-1 i fl ,ii,, \ '/ • I • •
;J •-~ ()J, (1.l''.') • '~: .J.1 ~l' ,( 1 ). 1 r

Hedaya,28,29;Baillie,31,153.'l .J.1,,:r· 'i.'Jt,_1 ..:.,. r·.l .• rt.·.,;,,., •

• • '· · , r ·1 •. 'r, ,f,. IJ:Jllr., ,,, • ,, •~l.I.:..:11\1..,,tq ·,1 1.11· 1:
340 §264 Chap. XIV-Marriage, Maintenance
of Wives and Restitutio..
-·~~
•

SYNOPSIS I
I
\ \

Wife's sister
, I

340 Shia law

'l 1 • .l
I '
;I
Wife's sister
A m~n may not, as. alreadr stat
According to the Calcutta Hig ed, . his ~if~'~ s~s~~!
h Court, •such a ma ma ge 1s j~~. hi~ lwife' s lifeti
Ts~
illegitim'ate (§266). According to void, and the is ~-
the ~ig h' ~ou rts 1of ~om bay4~.
Chief Court of Oudh,48 such I a· and Madras47 a:e IS
marnage ts· merely I uregular,
illegitimate (§267). The _C~cutta and •the issue is
4ecis~on; i~ is subrµitted, is not ~or
re~t. ; -~ • tl(X
' There i~, of course, no ~n g t? _ . J
1
~revent a man f~om marrying his
death or divorce of the wife (Baillie w~fe' s sister after the
, 33)~ • , ii 1 ., ' . , n!.. n ' . L:rr: n 1
Jj l" ~1r t',.' , .

.
• J I .. I, j I'
Shia law
) I I •
l' I
. .
'

,
• ) J l •

In Shia law, a man may marry his lI 1- - . , • 11 j (

' I
t', .... I

\
1• l .. ', t / . < I
,
wife's aunt, but he cannot marry
I
l •

-
'

,.r, . .
I '

without the pennission of the wif

e (that is, the aunt) (Baillie, II, 23) his wife;s niece
I
f
\
J. ' ' ., .: J ; t ,
. t. .. \ ,• r f
, t .J k l It. ( f> S I ,t
·. ,
. • §264. Disti~ction .between ~o
• • ·,
1',. ·., -·r, ([\ • i, • . • ' •. t•)
i~ ·, _irr e·g ula ~ marriages;-(1) A
1 , . ·' .

marriage whi?h not vali~'~ay b_e 1

. , I , .
'~it
. ....
hef vo i~. ~~ -irr egu lar.•
• ,l _,
(2) A .void marriage is one rwhic_, I 4 f'.. . , .
lj: • '"~',.
u. , i
h,is unlawful in,itself,. the pro
•

against the marriage being perpetual hibition

_ a~d-absolute;,Th1;1s, a marriage with
woman prohi~_ite,d by reason _of _c9 a
fosterage (§262), is void, -the pro 1.1 ~~n g~inity .(§2~ 0), ,~ffinity, (§~61), or
woman being perpetuafand absolutehib ition against marriage with ·such a,
.49 ! I'·: .,·~ .! ' " 11 I,·' , ' • :
1
1 1
'
•
(3) An irregular marriage is one
which is !not· unlawful: in .itseli, but
unlawful "for something else," as
where the prohibition is temporary
relative, or when the irregularity ,or
aris~s from an accidental·circumstan
such as· the absence of. witnesse ce,
s. ,Thus, , the i following marriages
irr eg ula r,n am ely - . ,''r , . i..,, .,,
are
.n·1 !,1 ..... , ,
•
,r, .·:

i' • ; . •. • i J l, I ,.
"10.
(a) a mamage contracted ~~fhoutl I, .
• \ I ·, -
I I f J
l

'3/itness ~§254)~ ,; 1 • -/ • • ..
l
I ' '
' . - '
J '
: ,

(b) a marriage with a fifth wife 11

by • pe~son· having (four wives
~: . (§255);
·' · .• ·1•, • '\
(c) a marriage with a woman un
•
'it r, [ I " I '- ,.,
''
.• ,, ••
·1"• r II,,. -.,
,, ,
, •.•
dergoing iddat (§257); . ·, · . -'
(d) a . marriage prohibited by rea • Ii on
•:,: ~ .1i' (§259);,1, J . , •. -~ ri ':n t•. r•.. son of difference . of•. gt
- ) • • , . . -. • • , .
d:: 1 .u t, .d:-t·!~•u .,c~ --.
• •• • '
1 • • r
f' 'J ' .J ( 'l • .. . , _
l • • • '. '

_ _ _ _ _ _._,_.~·-
' \

1___;,_~ , ·, l u• fi
•• '~ i .., ,L , .J•
I I ' . ,k
)\Ti ) j , ,.
I... _ _- _ J., •'.
\ •,.
' ' l I.' '
. . '
0,:J IU ,•l ·, . a, •ti ,~ 1I
l • 1

• •• ' ••
t .. , l • ,,. • " ,., .
-"1 J
45. Ai~_:nissav:Karimunissa(189
1

5)2 3eal..130.·,r) •r;! ,fti ·;· t ·.\ ,'·.: 1'· 1 I I ' •

46. Ta1b_"': Khan (1917) _41 Born. 845,, ~9 I.e. 1.1 ,n .-l :~ •• .,
41. Rah,man Bibi v. Mahboob Bib 603 . , --~ , .·,:
i (1938) Mad. 278, (1937)'2 M.U ... . .; r, .•···, • ,·: • ;38 • , »4.141,
48. Musammat Kaniza v. Hasan .'753~ 176 I.C. 300, ( ~ ~ ~-
(1926) 1 Luck. 71, 92 I.e. 82,
Muhamma~ ~1931) 12 Lah. 52, 129 ('26)-J\.O. 2!l ;_! ,1._;. , •
I.C. 12, ('30) A.L. 907. t r.l. . ~-
49. Women within the prohibited
degree are called Mooharim. ,-~• ·;: - ~' 1 ·'· - •'
 irregular (fasid) marriage .W :. , , . t . I §267 341
Effect of an .,
. ,, (e) a marriage with a woman so related to the wife that if one of
t them had been a male, , they could· not ., have ·: lawfully
intermarried (§263).
fhe reasR,n ~hY,. ~he afo~e~~i~- ~a~\a~~s ar~. ~rreg~lar.'i _nqt _void, is
at in cl. (a) th~ irregulanty anses from an· a~ci~e~ta~ cusumstances; in
1

(b) the objection m_ay be ~emoved by the man divorcing one of his four
c : es·, in cl., (c), the impediment ceases, on the expiration of the period
idJat;' _in cl.~ (d) the o b.~ection
, w1v • ~a~, be remo~ed by. the wife • becormng • a
convert .to _the Mussalr~an,,,C~stian o~ J~~is.h, religi?n, o~ th~ husband 1

adopting t~e ~-oslem f ai_th_; and ~.n .cl e). th~ objection may b~ removed by
the pia~ di,vo~9~!1~ the :~vif~ w~o. th~ 9bst~~le; th~_s if a man who
has already·married one sister, marries another, he may divorce the fust,
and makit the second lawful to himself. t' . ( 'r I • I I ' I •

\
• 1• • •·
.. .. ' ' , I I ' • ' , ', r
' • , i ... ' • •·
< It
. I '
.)
' •
. .,
"
Baillie, 150-555.
I l

•· . Shia law· ., .. , :1
• ,# It • ,. ' I \ 'l •

1•The Shia ,law does not recognize th~ disti~ction oetwee~ irregular and void marriages.
According. to that law, a marriage· i~ either valid '?r void.·Marriages that are irregular
under the Sunni law are void under the Shia law~·'. ! .J • • ' ( • I ' •• ' , ! ' • :: I • I ,

L I / f I \ , I \ - • ; ! ; .J ...., t f ' •' r I I ( 1

•• i ) /, , ' , f J ... : • • • ;

..., ' §265. Effects of valid_ (sahib) marriage~. A: valid marriage confers
upon the wife the right-. to ··dower,'. maintenance I and.; residence in·!' her
husband's house,' imposes on her'the f
obligation·to pe faithful 'and obedient r, J •
1

to_ him., 1 to admit~him;t~' sexual,~intercourse,;:·and_to obs~rve the· iddat.

' • If" f , t.1 > ' ' t ) I' ( I ••f
1
,..._ '•,• •

~! cr~~tes betwe~n the 1

'pro~b~t~~ deg~ee.~ of 're}a!i~!} ~nd reciproca1
nghts of inheritance. i • ,.,•~.1 ,,, 'i· -1 , 1 • _ • • , , •

:1~aillie, 13. It'may be noted that•a'Mahomedan husband does.not by marnage acquire

~YI interest in his wife's i-operty. 50 • l ~·' • <i l : 1 " , •,:.. ! • •' } ' , • '
, ,., - .. r I ' , ..... P, . .. ' ....' l-.- ..., .r I . . .•••. • r: .,, • '•1ri; 1. l
;(,[•,,. •••
"'
,.. ;;..
.-f.
:1
. . . I

§266. Effects, of. a void, (bati_l) marr,age _ .A void ~arnage ,i~ .n~
c,ft -••" ~,t,r :• ••• ••

:.~) j

marriage at ai1: It 'does not create' any civil rights or obligatiOQ.S betw~en
the Parties. The offspring of a void.marriage are illegitimate.
r ., • • •
0
• • f . ,

-,Baillie·: 156. 111~h;~;~e~ reied-e~ t~ Ill ,§256 ~d_

1 • • c, • I • ,· ;t • I ~• •

,2~~.ar~·v?id.: ; ~·~:I,::·'··. ', ·

I I

§267. Effect of an irregular· (fasid) marri~ge ( 1) An _irregular

marnage may be terminated by, <r!~h~r. party, - e1t~er before or , ~fter
1
consummation, by words showing an intention to separate, as where either
. . - . ; I I \ I I.
, ' • .', • I . ' f \ ' • ... . t . . '' t' ' r ) • l l \ i , • .. • • t ,
• • ,• r • l. t \
I
-----------~~ 'I• :! f f) •

SO. Av. B. (1896) 21 Bom. 77, 84.

342 §268 Chap. XJV.-Marriage, Maintenance of Wiv
es and Re .
Sllfutio11
party says to the other '.'I have relinquished·y •., etc
ou':~~ 1 An irregular . •
has no legal effect before consummation.i 1
• n ,1 • rn·;i•! niarnage
. I <: 0,. 1 fr !11 ·( 11 , ;
. (2) If consummation has taken pla ce-
1
••1
'. I/ (i) the 'wife. is enti
~led_to, do~er! proper'o~ sp~ci~~d, which.
i • ·, l
: . , .ess
• (§2 86 289 )·, ' • • _; • ' 1
'.
.,
1 1
, I
, l
_1 (, J ever is
1
, ...J ,
•
•
•
. ,
!
,
• •
•
.
l I
(ii) she is bo~nd to observe the_· iddat; but ., i 4 I· 1
I I\ J
) S

th~ dur
• •: I •

both on divorce and death, 1s three courses ation of the id

1

i , •• ' .' , - ;•
(see S.; 257(2))·. dat,
, • ' • • • •. ' , '
• (iii) the issue of the marriage is legitim 52 ,r ,I1 . ' •
• .d, ,, ate.
,. But an '~e···
marriage, tho?gh cop.suP}llla!>~-q, . oes ~pt_ 1 , , 1 .u,•guar
. ,d , 1'
, , • 1, •
cre~fe ~';Itual 'n h . 1
•J
11 • 11
• of__inhe~~ce b~tween husban-d,and, w~f~
_[~aillf.~, ,6_9,~,.i7tii.
The C~1ef Court of O~dh ~el~ 1that11~, d~es ..~reate; such
rig hts / but the decision, it is submitted, is
not correct: • •
Baillie, 156-158, 694, (see §254-259, 263 .. . ..
,. :, I)); 'J 1• ,
and 264)
. •
In Shamsudeen M. lllias v. Moh amm ed.
I

Salim,~ 4 the ,Kerala High Court g~t an

opportunity t~ co~sider the foll<?wing Cfllc
fal qu~ stio ns-,wh,~ther the !Il8!11age between
Muslim ~al e and a Hin du female i~ void a
?,. Whether the e:hild bo~ in that relationsh
legitimate, and if so, whether, the child .will ip is
inhe
, rit
. ' the estate of the father?. • ·, 1 • .. -. • . ,
The Court observed that as Mohammedan
(

Law clearly distinguishes between a valid

marriage (Sahih), void marriage (batil) and
invalid/irregular marriage (fasid), it cannot be
stated that a batil (void} marriage and a fasid
(inyaliq/irregular) ,narriage is the_samei The
effect ~fa batil (y~id) marriage i~ i~,
obligati ~.s ~.oi~ ~d l4~e.SLJ\O!, fr~at_e,anyJl~iyilri~ts or
ons between the parties. So also, the offsprin
•
Therefore, the marriage of a Hindu female
' 1 I , l ~ J , , •. l \
g of,; a void marriage are illegitimate.
•~'
with a Mus
but only a fasid marriage. When the offsprinI '1 r , ) lim
t
malfe ,cann
., I
ot
, •••
be a void
I
r , • ,
, i
• 1 mamage
; , ·,

g of a batil mam age is illegitimate, 1t 1s n~t

, r1 f ·11 1 ,
t '" •• • • 1, •

the case of with a fasid marriage. The offs

pring of such a marriage is legitimate: Thou
the wife, if there was consummation, is enti gh
tled to get dower, is not entitled ·to inherit to
the properties of the husband, and she tias-
~o~
to Islam and under Mohammedan Law, even ase tha (~n ~t;. i~~ ge) he'~ ~ ~~nyerted
after consummation a fasid marnage does
not create mutual rights of inheritances betw
een ttie: parties. But the child born in that
marriage is· legitimate just .like the c~e of
' erty O• f the f;ather,·' .' •
prop valid• inarrlage, 'and is·· enti~led
., I ••1 • r··1··1. 'I"~'ill• •• •,..,_,.T .. •'t
a t?
Iii~' IJ>~ J Jl;t " J( 11" I' _,vJ • ·J•)i,
• . ..;, ,1.
:,;,T •iarr l..iIO
. .lo .:-n-·.t< ,.
•
·.,:i ,.,,,. · ., • I
_1
•
J~
1.1
·1· .<~-•
H
.' ' ..I ··i,, -'
'
i
1 <1 • ·1 :

§268. Presumption of marriage· M~ ag

absence of direct pro of/ fro e will be pr~~um~d,,in ~e
m- •• ,.,,'.,;. [l t·' 1•"'("', {' ,, ,r,. :!-· 1!
r• • ' •• 1
I

,.l,, ,. ---·1· l , ;. ,., .;_.,-3. .,

•• , _.11 l , ,~=-)' '!',A. ,•~i •• n)
\ 1l••-'• 1 ,i1iu, ~..,1.~-· ~ . ~-> ~'"'·"!t·n. .'\'~,~:
.• ..
..
. ,-.. '.I,
l
11
,_,,_,,, .
. • , ,
I , , ,1·11,• n.1 t ~.J' , .. •, l • •' , i,I ! I•
i
• . - , • 1 : r
i , , -
51.I Mt. Calch Bibi v. Qua imD in ('34) A.L, , , ·, , 11 , • 1,
907, 1541.C 677. • ; I
v.
52. ·Mt. Balch Bibi Qua im Din ('34) A.L. . .i
907~ 1541.C. 677{ Muh amin ad Hayhi v! Muha
.; ·;,,;;.iJNQWOt
(1935) 17 Lah. 48, 156 I.C. 40, ('35) A.L. Mad 278.
622; Rahi man Bibi v. Mahboo,b Bi~i (l93S)
('38) A.M. 141. . •
. • ,, . I , __ -· . -
53. Moh amm ad Shaf i v. Raun aq Ali ('28) 1
•• \ . . •
A.O. 231, 1071.C. 882. --- - - - - - --
54. A.I.R. 2008 Ker 58: - - . . t, '
. . 1 .J.:{ .,r .111llf i L ,, • 11 ·' ••
 sU"'l'tiOTl of marriage
1
\ ' • 1 §268 343
55
,re ; )1 prolonged' and conti nual cohab itatio.n as husba•nd and wife ;
(a . ,ir
or n • I • !

the fact of the acknowledgment by the man of the paternity of

1
' i"'

. ~) the child born to the woman, provi ded that the conditions of56a
• valid acknowledgment menti oned in §344 below are fulfilled ; f • ,.

• r ,ior '
•
. .

• . ' t

(c) the fact of the ackno wledg ment by. the man of the woman as
t '
' ,,.

, , .'his wife~?7 ." • . . • t, • . ..

r

The. p~~~-~tppfion does _not apply if th7 con_du~i. no~ of ,the p~ie s 'w~s
does 1t apply 1f
inconsiste~t, with.-~~ relation of hus?a nd and, w1!e,
the 'woman was admittedly a prostitute before she was -brought to the
man's bouse.59 The mere fact, however, that the woman did not live
behind the purda,':as the admitted wives, ofl the man d~d, is' not suffici~nt to
tl 1 1 ·,
, , •
rebut the pr~su~p.tlon.
60
• ·' • . - . • 1
• • • •

t • (
I I , I • ' I

il said: ·"In the

; I '

In Abdool Razack v. Aga Mahom ed, their Lorpsh ips pf' the ~vy Counc
<. -1 41' { -, • J
61

next place,'_it was urged that ey_ery presum ption ~~ght to be ma~e favour of marria ge :m
the alleged
when !here 1had been a length ened cohabi tation; especi ally in a case where
to obtain a
marriage took place so long. ago that it must be difficu lt if not imposs ible
argum ent
trustworthy account of what really occurr ed. There would be much force in :this
t of the parties were shown to
- in~ it would be almost irresist ible - if ,the conduc
wife." It was held in that
be compatible with the existen ce of the relatio n·of husban d and
n, and their
case that the conduc t of the parties was incomp atible with. that_ relatio
Lordships held that the presum ption did riot app~y. f 11. l•r ·•• •\ ,. ' ' r· ' • • ( • '>
• ; ... i • • ' ..., ,.;' i i ., f" ,.. J ., , • .... • ,

·\ , ; t
;:J J
- ''l' •• •, l I f • ! : ,· • ,I'

ge presum ed]; Mahom ed

SS. Khajah Hidayat v. Rai Jan (1884) 3 M.I.A. 295, 317-318 , 323 [marria
159 [marriag e not presume d]; Ashrufo od Dow/ah v.
Bauker v. Shurfoo n-Nissa (1860) 8 M.I.A. 136,
1
94, 115 (mamag e not' presume d);· Jariut-o ol-Buto ol v. Hoseine c
' . Hyder Hoseine (1866)'1 1 M.I.A.
ung Kyi v. Ma Shwe Baw
: • Begum,(1867)· 11 M.I.A; J94, 209~210 [marriag e not .presum ed);_Ma 1
e presume d); Masitun -Nissa v. Pathani
.. 0929) 7 Rang.~?J7, _121 ).C. 718, ('29) A.R. 341 [marriag
d); Abdul Halim v. ·Saadat .Ali ('29) A.O. 126, 112, I.C.
• 1 0~) 26 All. 295 [marriag e not presume L:J. 428, 157 I.C.
ed); Hasari Ali Mirja ,v. Mashra tali Mirja (1935) 62-Cal.
'S96, [marriage 'presum
09 Khatoon v. Ma ·Mys (1936) 165
•: 1: ('~5) ArO• :572 [extensi on ~f muta marriag e presume d]; Ma ,
2
•56 .C. 32, ('36) A.R. 448; Mahom ed Amin v. Vakil Ahmed ('52) A.SC. 358.
, 47 I.C. 513; Habibu r
• ~nu;:abandi v. Mutsa.di (1918) 45 I.A.· 73, 81-82, 45 Cal. 878, 889-890
60 I.C. 837, ('22) A.P.C. 159,
, ,; hameman v. Atlaf Ali (1921) 48,1.A. 114,' 120-121 , 48 Cal.· 856,
Amfn v. Vakil Ahmed ('.52) A.SC. 35~. , , . .
57; M~
mad Hussain (1941) 16 L1:1ck. 615; (1941) 0.W.N. ' 249, 1931 I.C. 161,
, ; : (, 41 ~ashiram v. Moham I. , , ._.
58 Ab A.O. 284; Mahom ed Amin v. Vakil Ahmed ('52) A.S.C; 358. 1 •
21 I.A. 56, 65, 21 Cal. 666, ·674; Fateh Moham mad v.
• Ab'; Raza.ck v. Aga Mahom ed (1893)
01
had refused to
the mad
ac~l Rahman (1931) 12 Lah. 396, 134 I.C. 590, ('31) A.L. 223 [where
her child as his child). • • • . 1 1 : , ,,
59. Gha owledge the woman as his wife and
37 I.A. 105, 109, 3~ All. 345, 350, 61.C. 674; Jariut-o ol- Butool
v. H Z<lnfar v. Kaniz Fatima (1910) (1918) 20 Born. L.R.
1
Begum (1876) 11 M.I.A. 194. In Irsha.d Ali v. Musamm at Kariman
790 ~emee
6 ~.C. 211.. (' 17) A.P.C. 169, the woman was a prostitu te, but there was a ·writing evidenc ing
. , ; the' 1 , , ,
60. Md tnaniag~ and the marriag e was held proved. ,
<" . , , •

1929PC 135, l0Lah. 725, 1171.C. 17.

61. (lg~A l1v. 1t.:1ohamadlbrtihimA.I.R.
. Mad. 1 I.A. ~6, 65,' 2f Cal. l,~
• 484, ( 49) A.P.C. 254.
666, 674; See also Fattna 1!,init v. Adminis,traior-Genera_l1(1949)
.. , , i • , l ... ,
2
1 • 1
, : 1 1 1 ,
 344 §269
Chap. XIV-Marriage, Maintena
. nce of Wives and Re .
. stitutin..
.; In .Ghazanfar v. Kan~z Fatim 62 ;-~ et
ieamed ·udges fully recognize a, their Lordship~ of the., P~vy, Go
1 d that prolonged cohabitation unc il Sai •
presumption of marriage, but tha • • might gtv l ._d: '1'he
Lordships agree that it does no t pres~mpt1on 1s not ?ecessanl• y a strong ~ne e ,nse
t apply 1n the present case, for to a
brought to the father's house wa the mother befo and the~
s, according to the case on \)otp.
' •
' '
' !
1
sides, a prosti~~~?e Was
'
i
'

•·§269. ~Muta marriage (1) Th

f
' ,"' I . u. i
\ t. ,
, '
,
' r
j I -• ., / :
'~ ,,;

e
1
J
Sh ia law
-,
T

rec og
\

niz es
I

marriage, namely (1) permanen two ki d

t, an~ (2) '!J,Uta_ ~r temp~rary.' 8
l • .,_ I
I ' ' • I • ' ~- of I,
(2) A Shia of the male sex ma l ..,
' ' I l '
y contract a muta marriage wiii ' I
I ) ) I I '

profe~sing th~ M ~o ~~ 4a n, ~h th a wo
ris~ian o,r ,Jer~sh(religi~~' or
'Yorna.n 'Yh~ ~s ~. ~re.:.w~rsh1 e':en wi:an
pp~~
~ther' r~lig~~i:1· B~t a ~hia ~o ~a ' no~ w1th a_ 1following
ana
n ,may, n9t' c~ntt;act, ,jiuta' ma
1

non-Moslem.63 • • • ' ' rria ge Wi thy

I • • I . .) • \ 1 !IJ,
( ~;' 1 •' ., ' ·, 1,
a
I
i •' '
I\ 1 I
_) - (' I ••• '
l • ' •
' \ • • I
l ' •\

,· (3) It is essential to the.valid

l , • ' -
y 1 I
' , I) J • I ,O • \ ' ) S
;
lJ :I .,. • I •

ity of.~ .m:u.f~ m~ag~.tp.<;1t (!)_ ,. ' .I\ • ' . ~, I)

I < ;

cohabitation stould be fixed, th~_period~f ,

an
term.of years, and that (2) so d this may be a day,,~;mo~J4,\! y~ai-· o~ a • '
me dower should be SP,ecified.65
term and the dower have rbeen Whe~ the
, ,
• ' '
,.. • . • , ' •' • ,
, • • t • i

fixed, but the dowe~· is.not; spec fix ed ,· the co

''
ntr ac t· is •va lid. :If tli~ term' is
1
L. • " • i • \ ,, ' .

ified,. the cont~act

ifthe dower
•

is specified, and the temi .is no • • ' •

t
'

fix
• •

ed
"

,
• ••

the
..

co
..,. _

ntr
- .

ac
• .. ...

t,
1-

though void as a ta,

•• ~·...

may.opera t easa " permanent" mama

~.I-~ ' • ... • •·

: ·_,..1· ,, ,"'· 1., .'t' ·...:.),;,,1,·1J>'mu

'

• ·ge . 66 f .,.
1 , •
,i ~· ,. • , ,' 1 • , -
'.1, ;·:·- -··
!. (4) The follow
., ·. ,

ing are the inciden~s.. of ~,-.,,

••
;t•~ .';P l J, ~;I~ ' ~-d LI •',).,. ,: --
JO. '/ Ji .L~ Lr:i- ·
~uta. P1aTTi.ag~.:~j; 1·:.,. ,{i! .. -•. ,) .
t

>

·,·.. • •. (a)' a muta marriage do '

1
es' not create:mutJal ,nghfsTo
- ' ' • I

f inheritance'
I
...

between the man and the; ~oma

I it exists are legitimate and
ii, bu t ch ild ren: conceived while I
1

parents67 ,• cap abl e_ of _inh eriting ..fro~ both I

• ,•..
·.. •. , .. ·~'--l' ,,, \ - •.
,r I
,.i
, ,
•
,, ,
(•,,,
\ • • • \' 1
I .
•_·_. ·.... · (b). wh~re.the cohabit
,\, •. ,, ,..
I , , i • \ •

atioJ·'6f-'~~ \

l
II ·:'_. ..
•• muta marriage but there is·no
•
1

the 'marriage ;a s contracted ari dence·

•
·evi
~d·:~;:~o~~'_2oitrie~ces·J~ a
·as to the term for which
' d~the 1cohabhatipnyconti~~e~, tbe
proper mfer~nce would, in 'cle(au
~e
•. , I •

l{ of ·e~idenc~' i~ 'co n~ :~
I •

: •• • that the muta continu

ed during the whole period of
and that Childr~n .~~ceiYed, d,r c~ha~i~tto~,
.-·· , , and capable of 1nhent1ng from iri4 g 'th iiff;~fo~i~~ )~
therr father 1_;, 1\~, 11.ht. , r... gi, ~ e
.;,· i , , ( c) even if there is ev
was fixed and· cohab1tat1ontlJ.~co.le .~ ~r ~in'~~'thC'~t~·~ :;
iden~e ~f f
.1 '. • , ' - ·, ,
.I l
ntinues. after-the .exp~ ,u. , -
,, ,, ,. • ; ,
'
1J'' ,H) \ , .. i \;\ n~ t • ..- , . l1
,1

62. (1910) 371.A. 105, 109 •r: r) l { I .u•j . {r,j r~J \![V .'i )\,·: ,,, \\ ,·,~,
. 't'

, 32 All. 345 ,35 0, 6 l.C. 674 I) l, ,,1\\\ ,\\,I '·.-:

63. Bai llie ,II, 29, 40. , I, :. i.... C ~It, ' ' ;,jrl ,:,,; n..;1 "•J./ / ~,u ' I··'( :1 • ••
, •. • ·it -. 11 /1.l ~':0 . ;J • . ,'',_) lt
-

64. Ba illie ,Il,4 2.. .•, , 1),• ·\) .. •.. ilV ,1., A- 1
• • t • . \! ')., 1-.
l •1 . , • . ·.' '·: .. ,\' •1
•
65. Baillie, 11 , 41 . ·: .,· · ,
, • ' , \ .. , 1 1 · , l.l'l 11 (,•'\ l-il) 1· 11 1: • , • ·, '\. 1• •

66. Baillie, II, 42-43; Queriy , •· • . ... .,, ':r _., t ... •
, Vol. 1, pp. 689,693; Shazad • ,' ,.i ) 1..' l \ I 1 • • r ,• ' l) •A. }{yd• 6 (a
· 1 I 1
muta for life is also a pennanent a Qanum
marriage). '.1 d 1c·~·: I .! I I.:. 1,\· vJ.Fakher Jun~ 1( ,, ,1 .: . , (ti
67. •Baillie, II, 44; Shohar 1· •. 1 .\\' .,!,,~r\· \,\ •
.,J. t _, :n 1 '
at Singh v. Jafri Bibi (1915) 17
68. (1915) 17 Born. L.R Bom. L'.R. 13~ 24. LCi 499
13, 24 l.C. 499, supra [the
cohabitation in this case.;was for•ro~ ~). L:, .:/
 .' \
§269 345
,narriage
s' extended for the whole
,t11ta
term, the inference is that the term wa
period of the cohabitation and tha t the children conceived during
69 , •, : _ , •
the extended ter m are legitimate ;
. , , I

•(d_) a muta marriage is dissol ved ips o fac to by_ the

1 1
of the t~rm. expiry
case of a muta marriage,
No right of divorce is recognized in the
end to the contract of
but the husband may at his will put an
" (hiba-i-muddai) to the
marriage by "m aki ng a gift of the term
d term70;
wife, even before the expiration of the fixe
ated, the ·woman is· entitled
(e). if a muta marriage is not ,consumm
consummated, ~·she is
to half the dower. If. th~ marriage is band may put an end
1

hus
entitled to full dower, even though the
i .,

xpired portion of the

to the contract by giving away the une ore the expiry of the
bef
term. If the wo ma n leaves. her husband ate par t of
• •temi, the hus band is entitled to deduct a proportion
71 . l , • ,
the dower; ' l

muta form is not ent itle d. to

f ) I
I

. (f), a woman married, in the

•

72
has been held that she
maintenance under the Shia law. But it er· the provisions of
is entitled to maintenance •as •a wife 73 und
s. 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
:i • •.• , ' , . . !1
- •• 1 I • .. • ' • • '
l and
a Mu slim and a non-Muslim is unla wfu
"' I

a
/

a
-

Under the Shia law, mar riag e betw een

'

ch incl ude s•
contracted with a Kitabia, whi
void, but a valid mut a mar riag e can be mar riag e as
Mu ta marriage is a temporary
Christian or a Jew, but , ·not a Hin du. con trac t
martjage. A Shi a of the mal e sex may
distinguished from the ord inar y per man ent reli gion or
ing Mahomedan, Chrisµan or Jew ish
a_muta marriage with a wom an pro fess h' a wom an fo!l owi ng any o~e r
·a wom an who is a fire -wo rshi pper, but not 'wit
ev~n . with abit atio n
ion. It is esse ntia l to the vali dity of a mut a marriage that the peri od of coh
relig er sho uld
eve n be as short as day, and som e dow
sho~ld be fixed, though suc h per iod may te mutual rights of inhe rita nce betw een the
be specified. A muta marriage doe s not crea ed are legitimate and capable of inhe ritin g
ceiv
husband and the wife but the children con o upon the expiry of the tenn .74
fact
from both the parents. It is .dissolved ipso r
marriages at all: Baillie1 18. . _

The Sunni ~aw do~~ not recognize mut a

1

ump tion
pro ~f or by indirect proof, i.e.; by pres
draMarriages may he established b~ direct d from prolonged coh abit atio n com bin ed
w•; n from certain factors. It may be pres ume t of legitimacy iri favour of a chil d or
ledgmen
th f 0th~r circumstances or from acknow of the wom an as his wife. It is,true that the
1

•e act of the acknowledgment by the man I ' ' t

•
,

1 I , I

1, ('35 ) A.c . 572; Mt

9 a .(19 35) '62 Cal. u.r 428, 157 1.c.-·109
• ~ • :asa n Ali Mirj~ V. N_ushrat Ali Mirj 1531 .C.-8 O3, ('35 ) A.O . 152.•
All Khan (193 5) 10 Luck . 577,
70. Ba~ ar Ara Begum v. Naw ab Bah adur
. 71. B
ie,II
~ut
II, 43; Moh ame d Abid v. Ludd en (188 .a.
,41;( 1887 )14C al.27 6.,28 4-28
7) 14 Cal.
5,su p1"<
276.
•- ··- - - - -
72 B~ll 97 • •·' I • t r , r
I
t\ ; • ,~
I

• 8J. CII , ' . .• • \ \ ' ,

as state d
73 sion is of doub tful authority beca use,
I ,
t t
736. This deci
• in" ::; v. Min a Kam ar (1882) 8 Cal. wife does not in reality appl y to a wom an cont ., .
racte d in
. 1~ raya-ul-l.slam, "the nam e of. a ,, ' , ,• . , , I

74. s •YJ.oota"·' B 81'llie, fi, 344.

7) 1 An. W.R. 123; (1976) 2 A.P.L.J. 323.
• ·, • ,
YedAmanullah Hussain v. Rajamma (197
346 §270 Chap. XN-Marriage, Maintenance of Wives
and Restitut'
ion, etc.
Presu mpt ion does not apply if the conduct .of. the parties is., inco
relationship of• .~ 1S nsistent w· h
husb?Dd and w11e . 1t , , • ; It th
The·expr~ssion "-permanent" in sub-s. ( 1)
, • , ·; , • . 1f I c
is used in contradistinction to1"tem
No Mahomedan marriage, either among S .
unms or Sh'1as, 1s
•
pennanent in the sI>Orary,,.•
which a Christian or a Parsi' marriage is, for
, , . . .I , , . the husband may divorce the wife at ~n8: In
he likes. I
• ' i, I • . .., ',• . I
•, . Ybrne I ,
• " r 1,
I'
,• l I , • (
,
•I
1
• ,, • •• • MARRIAGE OF MINORS ,.r 1
r
I •
.,t • I • ' ...
.. §270. Marriage ~f minors A boy I
, , I
1

or a girl who has . not attained

puberty (in this Part called. a· minor),
is not · competent' to enter into
contract 'of marriage~ but' he or she ma y
be contracted in marriage by his ~
her guar' d'1an.• · • ". • · ' - • . , , , i l l 1' 0 I I ' I ' f ,
' I J ,( J • )
! I;

, A boy or a girl who has attained puberty, 'l i

.,
I ,.
I I 'l :1 ,I ,i, l' I 11,
is at liberty to marryi anyo'ne he or she likes
(

and the guardian has n~ rig~t ,to I interfere

ss. 14-16. (see §251 above) if ~e ~at ch1 be eq~al; Macnaghten, 'p. ss: t
JI 1 11
1 - r ,, ' 1
1 fl
If the bride is a minor she cannot appoint an r •,
marriage on her behalf. The consent must
76 agen t or vakil to ente r into the contract of
I
be giv·en by her legal guardian.71 (§271). .
, , , , r1
t .,.

.I.· ; ,..
.J I - •
1 .: :.'.il! ,.',ff l ,1 • , • • '~ ,.
§271. Guardianship in marriage (jab
ar) The.right to contract a
minor in marriage belongs successive
ly',.to1the (l)·fath er, .(2) paternal
grandfather how high so ever, and (3) bro
ther, and other male relations on
the .father's side in •the order of I inhe
,I ' '
'

ritance,, e,iumeratect in. the ;\,Table

• • .. • ' ,. ' ' - • JI - I • • I j ' ·~ ..

of Residuaries. In default of paternal rela

tions, the right devolves upon the
mother, maternal uncle •or· aunt and . oth
er· maternal relations 'within··the
prohibited degrees. In default of matern
1· al kindred, 'it· de\iolves 'upon the
ru 1ng authont. y.
I ' ' IL 1•
l' fl • ; ' •
d I, , I , 1 ., i ' .'/ ..i 'l [!,
I I : I I. 'I ' ' • I
J
I'
,. ' •t : ., • • ) J' • J , •
J
I• J' •' ' •• 1 •
• l. , /
,·, J 1
I 'I'J ' 1
1 • t.. , l I ·, I · I ,.
t I tl1!', ;_,", t'.I• ,
1
• • J ••

.
.. ,.
Apostasy of guardian for marriage . ; .
. . i.
SYNOPSIS
' l, J i
• ' I'

'
I
11,

!ui·~1
I••:,

••r ·1
347 • Shia law I . I,:, I 34L
Hedaya, 36-39. • ,· ., ,. · ••. ·,. '· 1 \. ,,,,· •I •• 1 1• • ! .I• J. ·'· l .•., I I ' 1 'I
1 ;· ·; •' -·.1• • •

A Single Judge ~f the 'Allahabad High'

Couit held' that -the marriagJ of' l mi~or 1

contracted br a remoter guardian when a near

the ,latter ~1d not, consent. _or subsequently
~r o~e was prese~t and av~lab~e _and
.
consummation would not.validate such a mam ratl~I' the 1marnage;, was: v~id,n~~ ·.,,,.
;h;:
1
aged.1;; ,!, • 1 ••,., ., "-, L, ·,r , 1 1:;r 1

, It is submitt~ that want of obj.ection on the

• .' •

part of the brothe1r was pJrhaps tantamount

• t '.

to consent.
: In Mohd, Nihal v. State,79 ,a Muslim mal . -- --- ---· -:- - -1. __girl
whose age was •the cause of controversy,e,of 22 years of age ,nam~d a M° :i~ the
both. factual and .. forensic; Ac~,. :,; r
I
1
.·• : / ' ,-1 (7c,' , t ·' 1• ,·...l .!
- - - - -
\.i-\f \ ,,1 "I' .V,, J, (I,··. ! 11
- - - - -
- -
11 f'(.• t h-'. ...,,. l ") l "Jti ·, ·H II
15. Syed Amanullah Hussain v. Rajamma tl\,.. ,o~l\: 1

(1977) 1 An. W.R. 123: (1976) 2 A.P.L.J.

• I •
l '•
• ""J 1-.J • .

16.: Shaft Ullah v. Emp eror (l93 4) All. 323, _, Il ,-,::

U. 387, 1501.C. 139, ('34) A.A. 589. -
77., Jogu Bibi v; Mesel Shaikh (1936) 63 , • - •11 • ' 1• ".'·:.,
Cal LJ. 415, 164 I.C. 957 .. 1 ,r, 1<11·• .1,1k 1 1
78. Ayu bHa ssan v.Ms t.Ak ktar i('63 )A.A \·' : ".'·;'.·.,~.\." ,
ll.52 5. " :
79. (2008) 4 Crimes 650, (2008) 17 ILR .~.• .il;: ;.i;J .L;
(Del) 1385: i' t_', \ i, f . ·, 1',.,,', .-, i,11,, ·,\l ,£ i·,
t\.,. ..... ,:.,,,,, ••
 §271 347
h'p in marriage (jab ar) , .
oaardians l
rdia n (wall) eve n though the father and
. -Jaw of the bride, had acte d as her gua the
it submitted by. the husband, the age .of
bfOther-:r the girl wer e alive. In ~e affi dav wife filed FIR
22. years. The mot her of the an
' inotbet shown as 19 yea rs and his age as to the husband.
wife wfuas d to band ove r the cus tody of the wife
dte se has
all Delhi High Cou rt obs erve d that und
er Mu slim Law the marriage of a girl who
prov~ided it has t?e co~sent of her guard~an
~~n ed puberty ~s nev erth eles s l~gitimate marriag e when she,
notal')I • In such caseI s, h<?wever, the' wif•e( , has the option to repudiate the • •
'
(VI
reaches puberty.
in his absence the paternal grandfather,
'fhe Court furthe~ obs erve d that .the father, ~md of a wait.' This important function cannot
Id pe'rform the rights, ·duties and obligation cated 'that
:uperform~ by ·a ~~o~er-i~-law. Med ical, fe~ts, ho~ eve r, ~nequivocally,I Iiindi
1? 1. • • l I

years of age: I ! I I ••

the wife was hot

I •
J -~
I I
I' l• 1 ,-1 I I

oi: 1woman; 'who has not

1' I;. I I • ••
I ';I I
min
I
I ,.,,
t~e m~r r~ag ~ of..a ,Mu slim
nnis'_the Court held. ~hat ,
ed 'pub erty, with out the con sen t of her wali ' is completely void. Further
attain nt
e o·~ the father no' othe r relative is _compete
irrespective' of her con sent , ·during life tim ' • •. . . .1 ,
1 ;• , ,
to function as the wali.
ed by the Court of the person of a min or
The fact that a guardian has bee n appoint
n to dispose of the min or in marriage. But
does not take away the pow er of, the guardia rriage
the mi~or 1~~i~g i1;1 such ,(~~ se,1 _a
o(th_e_ Court~· ~e.· gu~di~~·._for _the· ,ma rt to the
without the sanction of the Cou
should not dispose of the nun or 1n, mam age 11 I J ' . I -- ' • ' • •

proposed marriage.80
• , ' , ' ,
• I ;
I . • • •
) I• ; ' ' ,.,
. -~ ( _, t •
J; L.J ....t l ' • J '
I , ..' '

that once the girl·. becomes major,· she has

I .l ,- I • I~ : _;

• It is .a settled principle .of Islamic Laws

· this. right cannot be exercised by any one
absolute right to contract the marriage ·and i
the case of minority of.' the· girl. that 'wal
including the father of the girl.: It is only in1 •• .1 '· .. , ! , " . : , . . •, , : 1 .
jay~'- can contract her marriageJ.~ -~·r1;
~1Jf. , 'i ,
.• . , : ·.; • l l, ,/ 'I' • / ' I

rriage .
Apo stas y of guardian, forl.i''_ma
r- _ •

., . _ . "? f ,; ,~,. '.. ·'- 1,

y
of a II¥nor in ~~ age is. Jost by _the apostas
r,
•
c.~ '/.._"J 1 .. ,·:rl. , •'1- • f. .

:'It 1s d~uptful whether the. right to dispose Under the Mahomedan law~ an apostate has
.r

of the guardian froni the' Mahomedan faith.

1

by
(Hedaya: 392). Ir' is' enact~d,' however,
no right to contract· a 'minor· in ·marriage his
l inflict on any• person who renounces
Ac~ ~I of• 1850,I that no i law or usage· shal ,- and·. it was accordingly· held by· the
erty~
~ligion any i!'forfeiture: of righ ts; or prop 8 2 deprived of his
v. Arz oon . that a- Hindu father is not
. gh c;ourt of !3engal in Muc hoo edu cati on by . reason of his
to direct their ,
~ght ,!~, _the , custody of. his childre~ . and ded ' by the same 'High
c~~e,. how~ver, 'ded
~nversion ',t~ -Christiru_ii,ty. lit' 'a s~bse'quent I
a ¥.ah ome d~, who
's cas_~,. it was held that
hadUrt, ,but w~t:hout anY. ref~re~~~' to Jt:uchoo_disqualified by reason: of his apo stas y from
dis ~ 0 i:ne a·,convert to ·Judrusm, was hoo 's.ca se was.foll owe d by the Chi ef Court
of:s mg of his84 daughter in marriage~~ Muc a Mahomedan father to Christianity. In a
3

Bo ~- Punjab, in a case of conversion

of to
ay case, it was held, follo win g Muchoo 's case, that a Hindu convert 85
is
ng his son iff ado ptio n t~ a Hindu. It
__:medani~rri is not disqualified from givi
0 1

4) 42 Cal. 3~1·, 25 l1C: 229:, ,

1 •. ,, ,' ' ' • • •

:~-_·!1:;ijan v. Dis~ri~t J1'dge, Birb lum (19~ 22.

82: 086ul)Ahad:v. Mt Shah Begu,,:, and Ors, A.I.R. 1997 J.&K. 1 , .' i

6 ,. • , ·, . , • • , •.
83, 5 W.R . 235.
BLR . 160. •
84. ·~ ~he matter ofMah in Bibi (1S74) 13
i .J 1

ir (190 1) 36 Punj . Rec. 191.

85. sl:a! ~ham mad v. Mus samm at Waz , ,, . . . , .. : ,·, , . \
mgh v•.Santabai (19:01) 25_Bom. 551.
348 §272 Chap. XN- Ma rria ge, Maintenance of Wiv
es and Res tituf
ton, etc
submitted that the power to contract a min
or in marriage is a "right"- within the rn
of the above Act, and that the decision in
Muchoo 's case is corr ect But the Coun eani~
.
its discretion deal with each case on its own g
merits. '1' • •'
1
, • , • • may tn

'' t ' ,, Shia law I (",'

I , '
The only guardians fo/ .~m fag e reco~n!z
paternal ·grandfather how high so ever, Ba1 ed by the Shia la~ are' the, fa!~er and the
1
lhe, II, 6. (see note s to §274) r: • .,
J 'f' I t
;
§272. Marriage bro ugh t abo ut by fath
er or grandfather· When a
min~r has been, contracted in ·~arn~ge
contract of marriage is valid and binding,
-b~J the a~~er or· f ~ther.' ii f~ther, the f
and 1~ ~ann<:>t be ~~u lled by the
minor on attaining puberty. But where a fath
er or fath er's father has acted
fraudulently .or negligently, :as where the·,mi
'
I I
r f.
I • ,, \
nor or a lunatic,J or the contract
1
- • I ) I

is to the manifest disadvantage of the min

or; the contra~t' is voidable'at the
option of the minor on attaining puberty. 86
• • • . , :; , i , . • •
Hedaya 31; Baillie, 50; Ammer Ali, 5th ed.,
.
V_ol. II, p. 370. • ,' •
•It has bee n held ~y the Hig h Cou rt• ' of Alla
l ' • -
•
I
habad that a Shia girl given in marriage by
her father to a .Sunni husband has an option
'of r~pudiation ori attaining puberty unless it
has been ratified by-consummation or othe
rwtse, the reas'on given being that it would
be contrary to all rule s of equity •or just
ice to force such a marriage on her if on
attaini~g puberty she considers • the mar
riage •to be. repugnant to her religious
sentiments. 87 Following .this case, :a ·single
judg e of. the Chi ef Court of Karachi held that
the wife was entitled to ·repuaiate •the .mar
riage where the husband had been convic~
for theft .and was .under tria l .@n a .chru:ge
criminal intent:a marci.ed w,oman. 88
of enticing taking away or detaining with or
"' .. . ..
§273. Repudiation' und er the . Dissoluti~n "
Act, 1939 _ By. the ·Dissolution of Mu ~f Muslim Marriag~
slim Marriages }\c t,' 1939, .al
restriction on ,the' .option of puberty in''
the 'case of, a '.minor girl lwbose
marriage has. been .arranged 'by 'a father or
grm dfather has been abolished,
and under s. 2(vii) of the Ac t a wife is
entitled. tot the dissol~tio~ of: :
marriage if she proves the follo ~in g fact
s, namely, ( 1) ~e .man:i_ag~ the
not been cons11:mma~ed, (2) the ~ar riag e to~
age of 15 years, and (3) she has repudiatedk pla~~ b~f~r~ she ~tt~ne_ ·ng
the .ma ma ge ber<;>re att :t a
the age of 18 ,_years.89 The· High -~~'ourt
·o'f , L~ore~~ has oe~ided s ~en
1

decree of Court is not necessary to invalid

ate the, marriage which ha _ , ,
I •: r, !' , . - i 1 l' . ,: , J 'JI , '.:!
rt. • •' i , ' •,, :.. L• .'J I •
' l \·I i J
,I I I I
! r I I
f
86. Aziz Bono v. Muhammad (1925) 47 All.
823, 838- 839, 891.C. 690.-('25) A.A-:7_2oi
87. Aziz Bono v. Muhammad (1925) 47 · --~-v. AntinD
All. 823, 89 I.C.' 690; ('25)"A.'A.1;_720; Sibt
Khatun (1928) 50.i~.11:733, 113 I.e. 434, ('29) 'r-
88. ~be da ]!egum v.'.V~zir Mahomed (194 A.A: 18. '" • • . , • · '" ,\ · ., .-·. •!I·,.: r' 1''
, •
89. Diss oluti onof Mus limM arria gesA ct, 0) 190 I.C. 94, ('40) A.S. 14?·. ·, . ••. • " ·~d (l~ ) 1~
IC.9 4,('4 0)A .S.1 45. 1939 ,s.2( vii); Zube daB egum v. VazirMah
• : ·1 , ' ti
o ,' _._.. -) .,
:11·• ,\,{ i''I•( 1 , • : q•• ·' . • • ' ·:.-
1
90. Muhammad Baksh,v. The Crown ('50) '1.;
A.L. 133, (1950) Lah.I 227, ('50 ) P. Lah. 203
•
 §274 349
. e brought about by other guardians:, etc. • • . 1
, •. , )

!Jarr1ag
has held
diated by the wife, but the High 91Court of Madhya Pradesh
repu decree of the Court is necessary. . .
• ,, .
that a
, .
• Proof of age
estion of age is a question of fact and even if a birth-certificate is not produced'
The qu . 92·
,, ; : . . _. . ··., .
age may b~ P.~o ~ed ~ro_m o~h~r evide nce.
1
_' •..• §214: Mar~age _bro~ght about by oth~r guardian dian other
s: Opti~n of
guar
uberty When a mamage 1s contracted for a Irunor by-any
tan· the father or father's fathe] the minor has the option to repudiate the
.the _"option of
marriage on attaining puberty. This is ,technically called
9
. _ .. •
puberty" (khyar-ul-bulugh).
of a female, if
_The right of repudi~~~ng th~ marriage is lost, in the case
marriage and of her
after· attaining puberty and. ~ter peing informed ofout~eunre
it,: she does not repudiate . with ason able delay . 94
right to repudiate
, gives her the
The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, however
eighteen. years,
right t~ repudiate the 'marriage before attaining the· age· of
in the case of a
I

provided that the marriage has been been consummated. But r expressly
male, the right continues until he has 'ratified the marriage eithe
·, . ~1,:
prm.ipliecµy ~spy pay~~~t.~f;q9~e~ 9~Jby ~ohabit~~~91!··. . ' • • •
r, • •• ', . ~-1 ' r . . l. ·,
. ; ' r,. t r
i s·. 18. Consummation 'consented to by
r- ,.. • .• r '
p. 58,
f' ...

'. Hedaya; 38; Baill ie,' 50~52 ; Macn aghte n,

of'95the optio n: ' Baill ie,. 51. But. cdnsu mmation• does not
the' wifeI befo~e ·· the., exercise
, • • ' I . ,, , ' I ' •
1
'

valida ~ a.'mamage whic h)s -yo,id. • , ' J, , • . . , (, I

I :;· ' • ;., I: ' :. ·,,.
1
• '
•
,.. •
•• I .,
. . ••• ,.. ., J I(.., ..i •

she has- exercised her right of

• J .

~. Filing a suit for dissolution is evide nce' of the fact that

·11 • •
repudiation • • 96
.. •. I 1
;y•: •.!· ., 1 ..• •
•
, •·111i_ ' :!-•; ,·,., ·1 • •• , .i

,·1 ,.J,·1• ·f,, . ·1 r !

I,. ,, :.,.r
• I ,·1•1'11, •11, •• , I .I'
Sh'• J' · ' " · '
i• .a. '
v·, .
1a aw ,.l t11I ., .. , , : 1 1 J ,
'
t \.

• ,
,1
. _'Tl 5 . 1 . .
1 1 ,, J
l ' • 1 l I'. ·' .,

. J. ( 4 ...
I • ,,. J I
. & \ •
I • ., . '' .. ..
,· ( ' , •
l
!! t , t

a marriage brought about 1by 1a person oth~r than, ,a father 97or

: ' I t .... "
, I
I
•

. 1 According to' the Shia la~,

mjrior1 on 1attaining p1:1berty
grandfather is wholly ineffective ~ntil1 it is ratified _by_• •the' 11
:

(see notes to §271, Shia lawj1 " • ,. • - • ' •

' ' • J

r .. . \,
·r,--· '·'
,.·-~~---·
- [)
r
i".U\..ll 1.I>
,· \••-:,·
•l j :JU
.. , \ ~ . ,
• H •• " ..• ,
. • ,••, , ;
' .......
•.• '
...
-.. •
I . ,..> 5 •I '
'

..
•
J f
! l r:-• ; !I J ·.: d ( •J t' ) . ;, ' II 11 I • '0 '~" I I
t ..,

,
I • •

.
• I •, r •

Ii. t !
'f.., • •

IJ ! I I T:.
•• I

. • .
I,:':, I
. ' . 1
,
J r . ,
1. 11 .
. • .
'

91 •. p·mnahomed v. State ofMadhya Pradesh ('60) A.MP. 24.

• . ,

. ., .
1 •

JJ , • _ . . . ; J ·.,
,.
1 1 , .
1 , , •

, , •

J, , -J., • , , ,

102. 1 • 1 '
31 I.C. 413, ('47) A.S.
~- Mt. Razki v. Muhib Dur Muhammad (1946) Kar. 246,2
('36) AL. 683; Abdul Karim v. Amino Bai
3. Mahomed Shariff v. Khuda Baksh (1936) 164 I.C. 713,694, ('35) A.B. 308; Jay Gunnesa Bibi v.
. 0935) 59 Born. 426, 37 Born. L.R. 398, 157 I.C. A.C. 71; Ahmad Husain v. Amir Banu
174 I.C. 632, ('38)
. Mohammad Ali Biswas (1938) 1 Cal. 139, ..212. ,
185 I.C. 837, ('40) A.A. 63. Nizamuddin v. Huseni ('60) A.M.P
94 0_93~) v. Nur Muhammad (1922) 44 All. 61, 63 I.C. 702; ('22) A.A. 155i Rahmat Ali v. Mst.
. ,} • ,Bismillah
v. Haidar ('32) A.L'. 449, 137 I.C:• 739; Mt.
, 1~lah (1930) 11 Lah. 172; C79) A.C 827; Mst. Mukhan
r- I.C. 732,' ('38) A.~. 719; Ayesha v. Moharrun:zd
·) y':::t Jodha Ram (1938) 40 P.L.R ~05, 178 604. , , 1 ,
95 Ab ( 938) PW.N . 656, 177, I.C. 514, ( 38) A.P. • . •

(1940) Cal. 401,' 44 C.W.N . 352, 188 I.C. 490, ('40) A.C. 251;
• M du/ Kasem v. Jamila KJiatun Bibi I.C. 531 (' 42) A. Pesh. 19. • • _ , , ,.
96 A t. Ahmed- un-nisa Begum v. Ali Akbar Shah (1942) 199 514, ('38) A.P,. 604., c'. • \ , • ,,
P.W.N . 656, 177 I.C.
97•· Jesha v. Mohammad Yunus (1938)
26 W.R. 26;.. , 11 ... l .• 1 ·, l , t
• ulka Jehan v. Mohamed (1873) LR, I.A; Sup.,Vol. 192,
350 §275 Chap. XN--Marriage, Maintena
nce of Wives and Resrirur
Consent has been ~bown to ion, et
be withheld: l • . • __]! '• 1 c.
i!J 1
•
(1) Su it- ·by institution of
suit for dissolutio~. • ,: 1
"{i 1~

(2) If ~a rri ag e not .consumm

ated by, ~a rry ing . l\gain. 1
(3) By serving a 111otice. ,
. ,1 ,
.,
I I
•

"
I I

iJ
. . ,.,
. , ; .
l [, (
,,) ' , .,
§275. Ef fe ~ .of repudiatio~ .,

repudiati~n :does·, not 'oper . Th ~ me r~· ,ex ercise, ~f .th~{ ~pti~~· 1

ate as at dissolution' 0~ . tli

ed by· Ithe Court' untd thel marriage> nf
repudiation •must be confirm e 1

subsists, an d if either. party to n the· Illarri e

rr:
r I
1

hi m or fro m he r,a sth ec as em .the .m arriiige dies; ,the·,other will inherit

ay be . lt (\i , I::, ~• ,, ': ·i
Hedaya, 37, 38;Baillie, 50. ( r\ • l. 1 \ \ ,, , \ • \ \ _. , , I l \ • ·,
l .., ·: , , ,
1

' •
,i:11. I·\ •• 1
''
1
~h_e woman ,mar ~erse~f
•
'
1· f • \
,. ' t
:brin~ a sui~ .fo.r deolar~ti
\
J f' f • ,
9

opinion and repudiated the on t~a t. she_ h~s >,exercised

• '
'

:m~rnage. -Or she may ple her

he r hus~and' s ,suit against ad the rep1:1d1ation ,in "defen
he r .for_ restitution·,o~,conju ce to
tha t· suit de cla re· tha t· the ga~ rights; an d the •~ourt ma
. ma ma ge has~, 1be en .repu y in
howe~er,.. can be ~a de , .if diated.2 No .such.I declaration
s~e ha~ ·pe_~t~te-4 _.sex_ua,!. ·
exercise of the option. I, int.~rcourse.~~t~J~e~ arter_.t
l h; 1 • •• ,
,.J 1,., a,
.~.1 .. "--·
••' J • f'''
1',.
11 11·. .. lJ ;,,' li.
,. •
.. ,,J ~ , ' 1! 1
··. , .• - ' &1.t ·1• l '
,,_ .: .- ··;· , 1 .-'ConfiITmed by the Cour I
,; 1 .:.J
•
.i.1J '1 1 ll) '

\_; t , : t .~·.1u; i1 11 1 i .,1

•'
It is not clear that any ord
r~ 'nec~;~ai-y:·
I

err·~f 1the··cJurt) To e(c

• .j

held that no decree is requir

ed to,confirm the repudiation a1c utt a Mig b Cou rt has
1

necessary to impress on the ' • I

i • ,,. • • , bu t that an order of the Jud
.act.a Judicia ge. is
• •

! t.
l impnmature? and. the Ma
I J l I ( I f ./
i
Court lias approved the ··ca . • •I I ,.
' • t

icutta view'.3 'In a·Lahore fas dhya Pradesh Hig h

in an application to the De
marriage was-not bigamous
e~ the
puty 'Commissioner and the 1 girl' repudiated
n remarried. Jt' wils 'held tha
marriage 1
her
although·the repudiation had t the
In later decisions of the La not been cohfirmetl'bya_Cour 4
hore High Court '(now in t.
exercise of the option of·pu Pakistan) it has been held
berty puts.an.end to the ma that
In Pakistan it has been hel rriage without the aid of any
d that the Court 1does ·not dis Court.
bu t merely recognise~ ~e solve the marriage by its ow
te~ n~ tio ~ .~f n act
even said that a re m~ ag e :,w,arriag~}--~~. Al~~aba~.
is in_ its~lf.~p exer~~s~. qf tpe h~
obiter as the Court had held opti~n1~> ~ ~':l;t ~b~erv_a~on 1s
that the first marriage wa1s· inv
alid_.' \ ,, l t~r ·. • . ,<;,,--:·"
I • I t\ \)II ..., • \ 1 •i I ,
. ,, (i.
'
§276. Marriage of lu na tic ,. • , •
s The provisions of §270
to the marriage of minors, to 275, relatin_g
apply to the ·marriage· of, lun
difference that the option is atics, with ~s
or her reason to be exercised ·when the lunati
· '1 '/q ·,r r) 11 ':h~ 1·. ' c recovers
• ,I • ' ~.t, ) • le. ,i~ 1r~; ,y.. ' •. ,1..~ 1• .
;\\\.•
1

•. Ba illie 50-54. . :. ' '·

; i ,('•t ,>1) '11' .,'.,\ ,,,,· 1h.•
\1'\1 .1
'. 1 - ... l .. \h\ .'l' IL :'' ·.'
'_·.,, .-_; ·~. 1
.
., • >1 1 ,. 1 \ 1 >.. .i,\" ·~}
l
' ••. ' • ,~

.J.I \?..\ y,,,,_' .iL

\"
• ·.~ •
:,..
,• ''
I \ \
'• .! '\/\_
11.•'·

l '1i(1 iI \ ( /;:•i.\\,il:t
!'
••

l.,r ) 1 o1 ''' ..... ·-. • - "'< 1

. /, ·, .,, ,it .•·;·, . I .,.r ;,1 .:)J l,,l J,l (. , •• 11
,l', (.h ')(\ f~l 'L) ·r,H t.\h
•
••_ -\,( .l \\\\ ~i•
l! FollowmgMuhammadv. Em .'i
... - • • • '\'

p. 1401.C, ~17> ,It'1,1 -~:11.'~,\,1 .1h

• • ··, , , \ 1 1 •• ,
.r,li / .h.( ( )•·t ' '1,,
tr•J ' ) } ' " ~ '
r.' '"
I

. 2.. Badal Aurat v. Queen 1 <S::..(:!, \.lt\ \l\\ .,\,1\f\. ·1\1'

• • ~• . \ !
-Em
\ ·' •. Nil.amudd_in v. Huseni ('60) press· (1891) ·19 Cal. 7.9;: Bato9lan, v~;Z4Jioor, A,-' ~_.6
A·"~
2) 1 •·; . ,· 30;
1
•·

A.M .P, 212. l ! \ l .:,:;

3. Majizuddm Mandal v. Rah ' •. l Lt'\,\·. ' ). l) .;,, • I

ima Bibi (19 58 Cal. L.J.l73 102s.' ('34) l) 1

mahomed v.·state of M.P. 33)

i ,{i\ • , l
I,, .. A.C. 104; Pir ; 37 Ca t W:N.<1043, 149 I.~
I

('.60 ) .P. 24: I \'._,, 1 ,1' r-.'1'. "\ \)\\\ -, .,/, . ·,

4. Ghulam Muhammad The A.M 0
Crown (1933)"1401.C. 617, ('33
1
•• \ • If'. :· 1• _1 ·: ".
5. Mumi v. Habib Khan v.(19 ) A.L: 88. --·A :· •
'.
56) Lah. 1461.l \ \ l /r- ) ,~,,.- 1
,·~: ,, , • . t-.
1

.-, l('.ll .,'l I I\\I' ,. { \ n\\ 1 ,J. ,.c

:•-, ,··
6. Shaft Ullah v. Emperor (19 •. ,- .1 y_
(l
(I·

34) Ail. U. 387! 150 I.C 139 -l

1
, ('34)'A'.A. 589:\·''- \ r\ • ' .r'" • •\
order for maintenance l lJ ~'\ ) .t . §278 351

B.-MAINTENANCE OF WIVES

, , ' ,§277. Husband's duty to ~aintain his 'wife The husband is

1

to maintain his wife (unless she is too young for matrimonial intercourse),7
'as
so long she 'is _f~~t?fyl 1t?:hiilJ ·an~ ?beys his reasonable 8~~~ers. Buth~ is
not bound to mru.nta1n
1
a w1fe who refuses herself to him, or is otherwise
9 1

disobedte.~t, :, 'l;J;n~e~&, '.'th~ . f~fus,':11 1 ~r, diso,bedience is justified by non-

payment' of prompt dower, or she leaves the husband's house on account
11
~f ~s • ltY·1 1 d , :. , i n , , i 1; ~, ,, , ,

Toe· there 1
·~ec~~e for res!ituti~n of cbnjugal rights does not automatically bar the wife
from claiming maintenance but that if.is only a piece of evidence to be taken into account
12
by the M,agistrate in determining the :Wife's entitlement to maintenance. • '
. 1 iI , '; J ) )
-· J, , , l t,•
I , ,,' :1 ,·,1
I ,, , .
··, §278.r Order for maintenance • If the husband neglects or refuses to
mmntain his'r wife without1 any lawful~ 1carise, the' wife may sue him for
m~~eri~nse·,: -~ut_ s~e. i~ ' n9\ yll~it~ed 't<;>. ,dec~ee for past :~~ntenance~
unless the cla1m.1s based op.,a spe~ific. 1agree~ent. Or, she may ~apply for
~<
an order of maintenance under the provisions· of the. Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1908, s. 488, in which case the court may order the husband to
make_.-~,;mg~~hly .~1Jgw~n~~l\i3n r ~pe, ~w~q!e_,_fo~ h~r. piaintenance not
ex~e~d!llg fiyy hundr~d\~pe~sd-_ . •,., i ',l)i L , ! •r1 ;._ ·, -:, ·, , •. 1
,

' ' .,~ 1 . . . ,- • ..

..,J,l ;~ . ' ~. - , , ,• i.

If the wife exercises her' right under Mahomedan law and refuses to live with her I

husband on the ground of nori-payment· of prompt dower: she cannot enforce her right on
14
to maintenance under s. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the husband has
marri~ another·wife,' br k:eeEs a 'mistress,: th? ·~ife ID;ay ~efuse to' li~e ~ith he~ husband
and still claim maintenance. 5 Where the smt' 1s for mamtenance, mtenm maintenance
Willb.e.~~fuse~.
1
:r 7 l t, ,•,
. ,, ! • . • ·, . .'r ) I 1 ' -

; ~e-law ha~ beeit~altered by tlie C~de'of Cri~nai P!~~edu_re, 197~, (see infra).
•·,Ir 1 • , ! r ,J I)'_, , r, l , l 1.,. J ·, f ,' 1 J .r·•: • , • ) , .II l, . l I l , , 1

'1·:r!r\i,;1~>,,.,:1.~•;1r•·11~ ,·1.' ··,)lrShafeilaw~ ~- •:'. ,,_.,. ,. ,

'
.;_· 'I ",
I
1·il,1c,, · 1 •;: ,
, •
,,; ,1,1· ,; : . • : , ,
I ·,,.
.. r •
. .
,
, , .•
According to ·the Shafei school, the wife is entitled to past maintenance though there
may be'no agreement in r~SP.ect thereof. 17 •
1 1
- ' • ' •

-------~---,,:.,,.,.!:-i-- ---:+-- ) '~ •'"'• f' ; I • r • •, •, ti

7. B ·m 44 •• . , , •. . . , ' . • , ,
e, l!,·., '1 ,J' '.1,1 t' ~., •,r ' id ~1.1 ·1.,, ,, ,. 65 ('35)AL 902
S. Baillie, 442; Mahomed Ali v. Mt. Ghulam Fatima (1935) 160 I.C. 3 , • ; •
9. A. v. B. (1896) 21 Born. 77, at p. 82; Mt. Khatijan v. Abdullah (1,942) Kar. 535, ( 43) A.S. 65.
lO. B~e, 442; Najiman Nissa v. Serajuddin (1~46) 2281.C. 198, ( 46) A.P. . 1
1l. Amir Mohammad • 11st Bushra (' 56) A. Ra1. 102. , , .
12 v. m, • • . P :, A w R 335 [Rarnachandra RaJu. J]. ·
13·, Syed Ghulam Sajjad v.-Paryeen1Fatima (1980) 2 OfnC : : al Procedure (Amendment) Act 1955
. • Rs. nnun 1 . • ,
(~ " was substituted for Rs. 100I by the Code
500 ,. l}l I \d ,,
~v1of1955)' 1.;r,,r,<'J., •• 11
'"' ·• . ·· •

14. Muhammad A : "il ht' , ·AIJdul Halim '(1935)< '154 I.C.: 561; ('35) A.O. 285. Pakilstan: Mushaf
. zizu a v. 13 (' 57) A Lah 220 . • • ' •
Husain_Shah v, Hamida Begum (1957) '!, W.P"c!od • O f Crinrinal Proc~ure as amended by Act IX of
15_; See proviso to sub-sec~ (3) of sec.' 488 of the e r ! I: I l . ; I

• 1949,1 and Badruddin v:'Aisha Begum (1957) All. U. 3oo. - ; . .

!~· Mahomed Abdul Rehman v. Tajunnissa (' 52) A.M.
• Mohammad Haji v. Kalimabi (1918) 41 Mad. 21l, • •
5 -f
'.
: • , . \. •. .
.
• · :J~·c i
 352 §279 Chap. XIV-M arriag e, Maintenance of Wives and Restitution .
, etc.
Cherummel Abdulla v. Povvalora Katheesa. ~8 • ;\ / - H
, As regards the first question, there is no controv~r~y that the
.. pl~nt!ffs are. entitled
past maintenance
' r
as they belong tothe Shati1 sect•t9 1 ' • , ,J ~a .• r. t. 11 • \ '~ ., to
•t. ., ••
' .
-There
• is a
differe nce
n •
between the. Hanaf
• •
,

i law
•

and
•• •

Shafi
•• l( I I ; ) J J IJ J FI {II t: r

law on th1s pomt. Tlus'i

r
s·~h
out in Hectaya (Hamilton, Vol. I, page 39~). The rele_vant passage,•~:.. • 1 ., , 1 , , • ., ,-int
. , • , • , , , 1 • ,
• I . • • •. " 1 1., ,
. ,I . . It J I .I u J ll_.J fl Ill '.. l H .:, ).'I J
. I -
"Shafi says that the maintenance 1s m all crrcumstances to be cons1~er~d as a debt upon •·fl
- the husband in conformity with his tenant that it is not a gr.atuity
but a return, wherefore it ; . '"
• ' on." '
cannot drop like demands of the former desc~pt1 • l • •'r c,.-, ·1 , ,
. • .• ,• •r ::,., •
In Tohfatal Mierh I ,, . .
aj, an authoritative commentary on the Mirhaj by Shababuddin
Ahmad Ibu Hayanul Hailini. who flouri,shed in t~e 16th. centur
y, it) is stated that the
maintenance is a debt 0~ her h~-~ban~ e~en if it was 1_10~ dfCree
~ 9Io the ~azee:: l,hese
views have got reflected m TyabJt s Pri~c1ples of Mu~aIPT,~4tln
:½a~. -11 , • . 1 , :i ~L 1 .. r . b
1 1
In the instant case, the question before the Allahabad High
Court was whether a q
divorced wife was_ debarred to recover arrears of ,~ai11tenan~ C
e from 1her,divorced
husband under the. ~ct of 1~86. The_ -~igh, Court h~ldl th~t. ~the 1 u
l~gi~Jati~~ ca~e into
force on 1986 and _is not retrospective in ,operation. It. d9es. l
nqt invalidate.. the, order
decided prior to its enforcement. Since the application"was not1 C
'pendirig· for the 'arrears
of maintenance •when the Act came into force and I as 1such
maintenance cannot be passed.21 , , 1) ; !'
("a 'c:lecree for
i-.,u ., J'",,'l u: L11,,rr~ ·v> T~Lv, :-:::
of I 'arrears. {
I
• 11 _11 • • ... • I I I ,I'• r•.• lj[• .'),.,{1 -~. o" t.)\'> I 'JIIJD!.J
r.. ),• 11
11
• §279. Maintenance on divorce· (I) '.After divorce, the\vife·is'entit
led
to maintenance during the period of iddat22• (§257):>If' the 'divor
ce is. not
co~u nica ted t~ her ~n~il after the. exp ~ of t~aJ p~ri~~' ~l!e __is.
~ntit~~d to
maintenance until she is informed oftqe divor~e. .·.,.,, 3
J _.,,
1 1,J ',r:~c '.. !· ., , . •
(2) Awido ; is not e~titl~d:t~ mainte~anc~;duririg. th~-\~erib'd
' ' •. of :iddat
consequent upon her husband s death' .24,_.... ,; ~r ,: '.' ,·· ,_ ,!.,, ..:ir i1,1 ! rr
,J .. ll ... ., I\ •1 ' ••• '1.. 1 .J,11,

1 : .'.; 1:, . l i:,

According to Hanafi School, a woman who is divorced is • '
t> ' • f ' ,,·
entitled to receive her
maintenance allowance from her husband during iddat period
, whether she is· divorced
revocably or irrevocably. Imam·Shafi, however,' holds that she
is entitled to ·maintenance
only if she has been revocably divorced. There is, however, a
consensus of opinion that
she is not entitled to maintenance if she' is undergoing 'iddat ' on
death of her husban
,
• ,,, '11 1 1 •I l I.J I) • • . f • d ,,1 ,.,n,1r 1d.,;
·v,
The law relating to maintenance,, of ' wife ' •• ' ii 1 I ) • -~

verse sofHo lyQu ran- on· divorce revolves .'around the followmg
.. • 1-· 1· ... 111 '"•:v-.• 1 ..1,_,,,l i ._ ..,_
• r ./
(i) "Lodge them (the divorced women) where you dwell, accord I • •

ing to your means,

and do not harm them so as t~ straiten them (that they be oblige
ti(
d :tq lea;~ yo~
I f'l[t\\ , '1°\1,1 ,,1,\_,', 1 :.. 11 t,\ , , t \ \• _,,-,:.,I .:,,• .
•
.r { ,, 1J ,., (II a ,:i, -1) ·~;i I •
: • " • ,, ' .•. ,• \,.I ,ri\; . .,

,
I I'•'·
A.I.R.1984Kerala94.' -.. ·- • • • - • ·{ V'
· ~· ,.'' 1 .J.l~'C i,:\ ,-,lJ .\,\.\_,,·· 1~ •1•,, uv\ 1.i.:~i, '\,J:1··;" 1l••. 1
See Mahamed Haji v. Kalimabi, ILR 41 Mad 211; 1A~T.R.'t98'1 M~d,722.''\
·:.~, 1
1
t ;\' '\;
1

6.
All th
ese aspects hav7bee_n discuss
.• ·~.,· ladt
• the
. ed in ~fadr_asI Jl decisio
'
n, ~R 4~ MadI
2l!, 'A IR 1918 M
r.· · :,~ ;, · ·
I •\

} ,. 722 supra. E. V. Kunhimarram v. Ooramveettil Mammu, A.I.R. 1985

•
Kerala 239: ;,,1 , - l .//t ,
Gaizuddin Khan v. Haseena Begum (1990) 2 DMO l40, LNIND l990
A~l. 20.. ,~ t•. \ \.1'"'"1 ,\:V 1
'

Hedaya, 145; Baillie, 450; Musammat Marian v. Kadir Bakhsh ('79)

AO. 527. \ . , • . 1 ,_-, '· s··
Rashid A~d v. Anisa Khatun (1932) 59 I.A. 21, 27; 54 All: 46,· 52,rl35
I.C .. 762, (!32) ~.P.C~s2o~
Ahmad Kasim v. Khatun Bibi (1932) 59 Cal. 833, 846-847, 141 I.C.
MunnisaBegumv.NooreMohd('65)A:An.r!231.:.•'. I\Jit 1,1._1 \ •! 689,1 ('33) A.C.·27- ,s~ ;-d
""\1 1 1.\1<1',i .\ .,,,,..; ~: \!
24. Aga Mahomed Jaffe, v. Koolsom Beebee (1897) 25 Cal. 9.i
• •t , . "'· \ :11·1,,\\ \ .,,.\. m' ••
 . ,uznce on divorce .. §279 353
yarnte
. house). And if_ they are_ pregna nt, then spe!1d on them till t?ey lay dow~
their
• burden. Then if they give suck to
1
the childre n for you, ~ive _them their d~e
. ayment, and let e~ch of you accept the advice of the other in a Just _way.
But if
~ey make difficulties for one another, then some other woman may give suck
for
him. (LXV : 6). 1

..) "Let the, man of means spend according to his means; and the man
(11 whose
resources are restricted, let him spend according to what Allah has given
him."
(LXV: 7). • '. 1
(ii) "And· for divorced women , mainte nance (should be provid ed)
1 on reason able
(scale). This is a duty on the pious." (11:241).
l I
·A Muslim divorced wife filed an application under s. 125 for mainte nance
on her
behalf and that of p.er daughter. The h~sban d alleged that he had sent a letter
to the wife
making a conditional offer of divorce and had ~xed a limit for a reply but the wife did not
care to answer. He further alleged that he had sent his brothe r and one of his
friends , to
the father's house of the wife with who she was res~ding, to persua de her
to come and
live with her husband but the wife decline d the request and stated that she
would not
claim maintenance. The alleged representation by the brothe r and friend of
the husban d
was not set out in the written statement.' Not a' word was put to the wife and her
father on
this point in cross-examination. Thoug h the brothe r of the husban d said
about the
relinquishment the friend of the husban d did not say a word about it.
'l • t t ,
I 1'
•• \

Held that, the solitary eviden ce of the brothe r who was an intereste·d witnes s
f •• , ) !. I

be accepted. . , could not

._ • • • •• t.
: Held further that, l wife's silence to' her 'husba nd's' letters ,l would not
amoun t to
acceptance of the terms and conditi ons contained ill those' letters and it could 1

not be
inferred that by her silence the wife had relinquished her right to claim mainte 25
\ \' :; • •, t I ' " l '
nance. 1

The Plaintiff was married· to the defendant on May 17, 1950. A son was born
t } •

to the
marriage and thereafter the husban d neglected the wife arid refused to maintain
her on the
plea (held to be false) that he.had divorced her on the night of the wedding. The
trial Court,
on being moved by the wife, granted a decree for maint~nance to \>0th mother and
son. ,,
.The husband_ had served notices on May_ 12, 1960.a~d July 1~' 1_96~ st~ting that
divorced the wife on the night of the wedding. Following the view of the Allaha he ~ad
bad High
Coun_ in Asmatullah v. Mst. Khatunnissa,~6 based on pri~ciple stated by Macna
ghten,
lhe_~te of, the divorc·e, in the face of the wife's denial! .was ~eld to pe ~e
,date of the
n?ttce. Mahomedan Law gives not only the right ~o t~e ~usb~nd to pronou
nc~ an. oral
divorce but also to do so by notice. When such a notice _is gr~~_n_1t_ amol!!_lt~ to
a cJ.1vorce.
• She is then.entitled to mainte nance during the period of iddat (q.v.), in this
case from
May 12; 1960. She was held not entitled to past maintenance unless there was a specifi
agreement.27 / .I ,. • .,.,1 •·
c
'' • • ' ·, • • I ' •
, • ,
i I •. ' .,. 1 1 l. /· r ' . ,\ • ' \ l .. l .
1
' ', I . I. I I ., I .)I' • .
1 ' •
'
•

Order of maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908, Sec~o n 488
,. " •• • ~· I J I .) • I

Where an' order is, made for· the maintenance of a wife under s. 488 of_ the
-

Crimin al
Procedure Code' (§278)' and the wife' is afterwards divorce?, the order cease~
to., operat e
l, __)/ L . t \, '', '\ ' .
____
2 ____ ___;;__ ____ "I I 1•. I )I\,, ' I ' pl,
I
•• '
. ,l, l .
I
(

.. I I, •• ·,
2!· S!ed Mukhtar Ahmad v. Smt. Moonis Fatima, 1981 All. U. 785 , [R. B,. Lai,
I • #

J.]. • , •• ,
• ( 39) A. All 592
27.. Moi.~-- - _; . • . B (' 0) A AP. ..
Imam Saheb v. Ha.JJu Bee ( 1970) l An.
•r.c.unmaa Al, v. Fareedunmssa egum 7 . • _ • . 298·• 1' 1
· W.R. 138. , Ir• .. , . , '
1 1 1
•• 1
• • 1
·, .. ~ , _, .. f~
11 :