(1.) Our learned brother, Bhat, J. doubted the correctness of the decision reported in Abdul Rahimankutty v. Aysha Beevi, 1959 Ker LT 1077 : (AIR 1960 Ker 101). He referred the matter for the decision of a Division Bench. Accordingly these cases come up before us.
(2.) An interesting and to some extent hitherto not very well indagated question in Muhammadan Law arises in these cases. Whether the marriage of a Muhammadan male with a muhammadan female pregnant through some unknown person is valid, void or irregular? A subsidiary question that has to be answered is whether the Muslims of Malabar area or for that matter any part of the State are presumed to follow Hanafi Law or Shafie Law.
(3.) To make the case intelligible it is desirable to call attention to the brief facts. These are the facts. Crl. R.P. No. 278 of 1981 is by a wife in a proceeding under S. 125 of the Cri. P.C. She was married to the respondent and she gave birth to a child. The respondent divorced the petitioner. He neglected to maintain her and the child. The petitioner claimed maintenance for herself and for her child from the respondent.