KUNHAMMU Vs. KHADIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE courts below concurred in granting a decree for dissolution of marriage in a suit filed by a Muslim wife against her husband.The aggrieved husband has pre­ferred this second appeal.Dissolution of the marriage was sought on the two grounds mentioned in section 2(vii)and 2(viii )(a)of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act,1939(referred to,for short,as the Act ).Briefly stated,the grounds are:that the plaintiff having been given in marriage before attaining fifteen years of age,had repudiated the same before attaining eighteen years,the marriage not having been consummated section 2(vii );and that the defen­dant had been habitually assaulting the plaintiff or making her life miserable by cruelty of conduct.

(2.) THE marriage was on 17th October 1968.According to the plaintiff,at the time of the marriage,she was about fourteen years and three months,and had not attained puberty.According to the defendant on the other hand,she was nearly twenty years and had attained puberty.The plaintiff's further case is as follows:The ˜Veedukudal '( the coming home to the bride's house)was only on 9th October 1969;it was delayed on account of non -payment,and certain disputes about payment,of a sum of Rs.10,000,promised by the plaintiff's father to the defendant.On 10th October 1969,i.e.the next day after the home -coming ceremony,the plaintiff went to the defendant's house,and came back the next day,to her own house.The defendant did not come to the plaintiff's house.On 25th August 1970,the plaintiff was sent to the defendant's house,with a promise that Rs.10,000 would be paid the next day.This was done.The plaintiff stayed on for ten days in the defendant's house and returned to her own on 6th September 1970.During this period of her stay she was treated cruelly.On 24th July 1971,the defendant sent Ext.A -5 notice dated 24th July 1971 threatening the plaintiff with legal proceedings in the event of her not rejoining him with the articles stated to have been taken away by her.This was followed imme­diately thereafter by the institution of Ext.A -7 plaint dated 26th July 1971,for the injunction to restrain the plaintiff from contracting,as reported,a second marriage.Ext.B -1 dated 3rd August 1971 is the plaintiff's reply to Ext.A -5.By the time Ext.B -1 was sent,the plaint in the present suit seems to have prepared on 2nd August 1971,although it was filed only on 6th August 1971.

(3.) BOTH the courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff was born on 14th July 1954,and therefore married before attaining fifteen years of age;that the marriage had not been consummated;and that the plaintiff had repu­diated the marriage as required by section 2(vii)of the Act.They also found that the cruelty pleaded by the plaintiff had been established.