Annulment of triple talaq upheld, man told to pay Rs 10k maintenance

Justice RMT Teekaa Raman, while disposing a criminal revision petition moved against the order of the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, said, “The trial court has given a categorical finding that the pronouncement of talaq, as pleaded by the husband is not legally valid and the same does not satisfy the condition contemplated in Holy Quran.”

“Moreover, the alleged letter of certification, said to have been issued by the Chief Qazi, has no signature in the place of witnesses and in the absence of any witness, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the alleged letter of certification of pronouncement of talaq said to have been issued by the Chief Qazi was obtained by fraud and does not advance the husband’s case,” the judge added.

As per the case, NA Nissar Ahmed and M Hussaini Basha were married on January 12, 2009 and the same was registered. But, two days after marriage, the wife came to know that her husband’s mother is a leprosy patient. When she questioned it, she was subjected to cruel treatment. She was left with no other option to leave the matrimonial home.

In the family court, the husband on conceding to the marriage had contended that his wife had left the matrimonial home on her will and hence, she is guilty of wilful desertion. Despite his best effort, she refused to come and live with him and accordingly he had sent a notice along with pronouncement of single talaq enclosing a DD for Rs 4,500 initially on July 16, 2010. Subsequently, he sent the second and third talaq on August 6, 2010 and September 25, 2010 respectively. Based on this, he said the marriage is no longer valid and hence she was not entitled for any maintenance.

Following this, the family court, which on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence concluded that husband had suppressed the fact about his mother’s health. It also found that the alleged pronouncement of talaq was obtained fraudulently and holding that the marriage between the parties is subsisting awarded Rs 10,000 as maintenance.

Challenging the correctness of the Family Court order, the husband preferred the criminal revision.

Justice Teekaa Raman, while dismissing the plea, also held that since the husband is drawing a monthly salary of Rs 35,000, the grant of Rs 10,000 towards maintenance is reasonable.