Karnataka HC bench axes challenge to family court’s order on monthly maintenance, says giving ‘mehr’ cannot be ground for evading responsibilities to ex-wife, fines petitioner Rs 25,000
BENGALURU:
In a boost for divorced Muslim women’s rights, the Karnataka High Court has held that though marriage is a contract and not a sacrament in Islam, the husband cannot evade his obligations of giving maintenance to his ex-wife.
In a ruling on October 7, a bench headed by Justice Krishna S Dixit rejected Ezazur Rehman’s petition challenging the family court order to provide monthly maintenance of Rs 3,000 to his divorced wife.
The bench observed that Muslim marriage is a contract, and a couple enter into wedlock according to the agreement between two families. In case of divorce, the husband will not get away from his responsibilities, and the matter will not end by just giving ‘mehr’.
According to the court, a Muslim marriage places certain justifiable responsibilities on the husband, and the ex-wife who has no income and faces financial distress needs compensation.
WP3002-15-07-10-2021Scripture quoted
In this connection, the bench cited the Quran and the Hadis (Islamic tradition) which say that if the wife is not going to remarry or is helpless, compensation should be given.
The bench rejected the argument of the husband that since he had already given ‘mehr’ at the time of the wedding, it was not possible for him to give compensation subsequently. He had also argued that he needed to look after the expenses of his second wife and their children.
Fine awarded to ex-wife
Terming the man’s argument ‘against morality’, the court slapped a fine of Rs 25,000 on him and ordered that the amount be given to his divorced wife.
The facts of the case are that Rehman married Sayira Banu in 1991. After nine months, he gave her the ‘mehr’ amount of Rs 5,000 and divorced her.
In 2002, she filed a civil petition seeking compensation from her former husband. The family court in 2011 ordered Rehman to give Rs 3,000 every month as maintenance to his divorced wife. He then appealed in the High Court.
