KOCHU MUHMMAD KUNJU ISMAIL Vs. MOHMMAD KADEJA UMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainant in a private prosecution for offences under S.494 and 114 I. P. C. and is directed against the judgment of acquittal entered by the court below.

(2.) The complainant had married the 1st accused in Mithunam 1116. They both came from the village of Thalayolaparamba in North Travancore and belonged to the Shia sect of Muslims. They lived together cordially till 22-9-1121 when the 1st accused left the complainant for her father the 2nd accuseds house for good. According to her, she was driven out forcibly by the complainant after divorcing her by words of Talak pronounced. She accordingly filed suit O. S. 426 of 1122 on the file of the Vaikom Munsiffs Court for recovery of Mahar and also certain movables The court however found against the allegation of divorce by the complainant, but still gave judgment in favour of the 1st accused for the value of the movables: vide Ext P-4 judgment dated 17-6-52. While that suit was pending, the complainant filed O. S. 175/1124 before the Alleppy District Court, against the 1st accused and her father as 1 and 2 defendants, for restitution of conjugal rights. That suit was contested by the 1st accused on the plea of divorce by the complainant already alleged in her own previous suit and alternatively on grounds of cruelty and ill treatment at his hands. The District Judge found against the 1st accused on her primary plea as to divorce but upheld her alternative plea as to cruelty and ill treatment and in the result dismissed the suit by his judgment Ext. P-7 dated 8-1-52. It was indeed based upon this Judgment that the learned Munsiff, entered his finding in Ext P-4 judgment above referred to. The complainant took up the matter before the High Court of Travancore - Cochin as A. S.305/57, but without success vide Ext P-5 judgment dated 20-1-1954.

(3.) On 10-5-1954, the 1st accused sent Ext. D-1 registered card the complainant intimating the fact of her having effected divorce of the complainant Fasakh on the ground of his failure to maintain her from 1121 onwards. This letter returned to her as refused She sent further letter Ext D-2 on