KUNHUMUHAMMED Vs. AYISHAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i) Does a divorce valid under the Muslim Law ipso facto extinguish the liability of the husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to pay maintenance to his wife even when it is admitted or proved that amounts due under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have not been paid

(2.) These two questions of crucial relevance and contextual significance arise for consideration in this RP(FC) which has been referred to a Division Bench under Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act by a Single Judge (one of us). The learned Counsel for the contestants have been heard in detail. As it was felt that larger questions of public importance are involved, we had requested the learned Counsel who are willing, to offer assistance to us as amicus curiae and accordingly M/s. M.P.M. Aslam, K.I. Mayankutty Mather, P.K. Ibrahim, C.S. Dias, C.S. Rejith and V.G. Arun have offered assistance to us. We record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered to us by the learned counsel, appearing for the parties as also the learned Counsel who rendered assistance to us as amicus curiae.

(3.) The relevant facts can be summarised in a nutshell. Marriage between the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife is admitted. They are referred to hereinafter as the 'husband and wife'. There was acrimony in their matrimony and as early as in the early eighties the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirur, in M.C. No. 6/81 had directed payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60/- per mensem to the respondent/wife. That order was passed on 18/3/82. We are not adverting to the claim of the children as the same has now become irrelevant.