MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Muslim Law | Delay in Declaring Matrimonial Status Does Not Apply to Divorce Cases: Allahabad HC

25 September 2024 3:45 PM

By: sayum


On September 12, 2024, the Allahabad High Court, in Smt. Hasina Bano vs. Mohammad Ehsan, set aside a Family Court ruling that dismissed a suit for the declaration of divorce by mutual consent (mubara’at) under Muslim Personal Law. The Court held that no limitation period applies to matrimonial status declarations and dismissed the Family Court's decision based on delay and technical grounds regarding the non-submission of the original Talaqnama.

The case stemmed from the marriage of Smt. Hasina Bano and Mohammad Ehsan, solemnized in 1984. The couple had mutually agreed to divorce by mubara’at (mutual consent) in 1999, and a notarized Talaqnama was executed in 2000. Living separately since 1990, they jointly sought a declaration of their divorce in 2021. However, the Family Court dismissed their suit on October 10, 2023, citing a delay of 20 years in filing and the non-submission of the original Talaqnama.

The Family Court dismissed the case, invoking the Limitation Act, 1963, arguing that a 20-year delay barred the suit. The High Court found this erroneous, noting that Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act explicitly exempts matrimonial cases from limitation periods. The Court clarified that under the Family Courts Act, 1984, there is no time bar for seeking declarations of matrimonial status. "In matters of marital status, the cause of action is continuous," the Court observed.

The Family Court also faulted the appellants for not submitting the original Talaqnama. The High Court, referencing Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, held that facts admitted need not be proven. Since the respondent had never disputed the divorce or the Talaqnama's authenticity, the Family Court's insistence on the original document was unnecessary. The High Court accepted the Talaqnama as additional evidence.

The Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Family Court's judgment. The Court ruled that the technical grounds on which the Family Court dismissed the suit were legally unsound. It emphasized that declarations of divorce by mutual consent (mubara’at) under Muslim Personal Law are valid when both parties agree, regardless of the time elapsed. Furthermore, since the Talaqnama's authenticity was never disputed, dismissing the case for non-submission of the original document violated the principles of justice.

The Court cited Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act, holding that the Limitation Act does not apply to marriage or divorce-related suits, as they are recurring causes of action.

The High Court referenced previous cases, notably Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (2017) and Asbi K.N. vs. Hashim M.U. (2021), to establish that divorce by mubara’at under Muslim Personal Law requires no strict formalities, oral or written, and is valid upon mutual consent.

On the issue of delay, the Court reiterated that "substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations" and that matrimonial cases involving continuing status cannot be dismissed on mere technicalities like time delay.

The Allahabad High Court decreed that the matrimonial status of the parties was indeed divorced and overturned the Family Court’s decision. The Talaqnama, though not originally submitted, was acknowledged, and the case was resolved in favor of the appellants.

Date of Decision: 12/09/2024

Smt. Hasina Bano vs. Mohammad Ehsan

Latest Legal News