shubham gurav 28 March 2017

Protection of muslim womens after divorce act, 1986 and domestic violence act, 2005

Hi, Please help me with the case. Ahmed and ayesha married on 3rd march 2013 accordinf to musllim rites. In june 2013 ayesha's younger sister sabrina got the admission in the prestifious educational institute due to which she started residing with them. Ahmed developed affection for sarina and started harrasing ayesha. He gifted a very expensive Smartphone to Sabrina and both them tried to spend maximum time together which resulted in quarrels between ayesha. On 25th December 2015, ayesha tried stopping the two Ahmed and Sabrina who were going out for a dinner and asked Sabrina to leave their house. After the exchange of heated words Ahmed gave a tight slap to ayesha due to which she fell down and told her to leave the house within 2 days and if she doesn’t do so she will have to face consequences trying to threaten her. On 26th December Ahmed pronounced triple talaq and divorced ayesha. ayesha filed as case against Ahmed and Sabrina under sec 12 of domestic violence act, 2005 in trial court where the judicial magistrate granted the interim maintenance of 3000rs to ayesha under sec 23 of D. V. Act. Ahmed and Sabrina approached High Court of Bombay for quashing the proceeding before the judicial magistrate. Main contention of ahmed was that order of the trial court was violating the personal law applicable to him. He contended that under the muslim women's protection of rights after divorce act, 1986 his obligation to maintain his wife is limited only till the expiry of period of iddat observed by wife. The trial court dealing with D. V. case by ordering the interim maintenance has extended this obligation beyond the iddat period. Sabrina contended that she can't e impleaded as respondent no 2 as she is not covered within the definition of respondent under D. V. act. Now the main issue is ISSUE 1 Whether appellant is liable to pay maintenance to respondent no.1 even after the expiry of Iddat period? ISSUE 2 Whether the order passed by the learned trial court was violating to the personnel laws applicable to appellant? ISSUE 3 Whether respondent number 2 falls within the scope of the term ‘respondent’ as defined in Domestic Violence Act ? I have to argue as a counsel for ayesha. Please help. Thanks a lot in advance.

Reply Follow

2 Replies

(Guest)

Originally posted by : shubham gurav

Hi, Please help me with the case. Ahmed and ayesha married on 3rd march 2013 accordinf to musllim rites. In june 2013 ayesha's younger sister sabrina got the admission in the prestifious educational institute due to which she started residing with them. Ahmed developed affection for sarina and started harrasing ayesha. He gifted a very expensive Smartphone to Sabrina and both them tried to spend maximum time together which resulted in quarrels between ayesha.
On 25th December 2015, ayesha tried stopping the two Ahmed and Sabrina who were going out for a dinner and asked Sabrina to leave their house. After the exchange of heated words Ahmed gave a tight slap to ayesha due to which she fell down and told her to leave the house within 2 days and if she doesn’t do so she will have to face consequences trying to threaten her.
On 26th December Ahmed pronounced triple talaq and divorced ayesha.
ayesha filed as case against Ahmed and Sabrina under sec 12 of domestic violence act, 2005 in trial court where the judicial magistrate granted the interim maintenance of 3000rs to ayesha under sec 23 of D. V. Act.
Ahmed and Sabrina approached High Court of Bombay for quashing the proceeding before the judicial magistrate. Main contention of ahmed was that order of the trial court was violating the personal law applicable to him. He contended that under the muslim women's protection of rights after divorce act, 1986 his obligation to maintain his wife is limited only till the expiry of period of iddat observed by wife. The trial court dealing with D. V. case by ordering the interim maintenance has extended this obligation beyond the iddat period. Sabrina contended that she can't e impleaded as respondent no 2 as she is not covered within the definition of respondent under D. V. act.
Now the main issue is
ISSUE 1
Whether appellant is liable to pay maintenance to respondent no.1 even after the expiry of Iddat period?

IT depends upon the order of the magistrate, if he has not mentioned time limit, then husband has to pay. But this can be challenged in appelate court stating IDDAT period rule. So you tell what is time frame mentioned.

ISSUE 2
Whether the order passed by the learned trial court was violating to the personnel laws applicable to appellant?
This is what I call "tante takraar case". She should not have filed the case. But she filed. Only to trouble husband. This violates law of maintenance under Muslim Personal Law.
ISSUE 3
Whether respondent number 2 falls within the scope of the term ‘respondent’ as defined in Domestic Violence Act ?

As Sabrina was residing there at the time of such event, she falls within the ambit of domestic relation and thus is a respondent, correctly interpreted.
I have to argue as a counsel for ayesha. Please help. Thanks a lot in advance.