S.BASHERIA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent viz., Chief Kazi of the Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 09.06.2006 and certified by him on 27.07.2006 and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to pay compensation of Rs.7,00000/- jointly and severally by way of damages to the petitioners herein.

(2.) WHEN the writ petition came up on 29.01.2007, this court admitted the writ petition. In the miscellaneous petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to register the complaint dated 31.07.2006. This Court dismissed the miscellaneous petition and directed the main writ petition itself to be posted for final hearing in the first week of November 2007.

(3.) WHEN she made enquiries with the local people, She came to know that the third respondent had obtained an authoritative verdict/Fatwa from the second respondent dissolving her marriage with the third respondent by way of showing a Kulanama (divorce proposal given by wife to husband as per Islamic Law) dated 09.06.2006 alleged to have been written by the first petitioner. It is only on the basis of the same, the local jamath people permitted the third respondent to marry another muslim woman on the wrong belief that she had opted to get divorce from the third respondent. But she has not given any letter of kulanama to the third respondent. The letter dated 09.06.2006 alleged to have been signed by her is nothing but an act of fraud and forgery. None of the petitioners herein had given the said letter and even the address of the petitioners is not mentioned in the letter dated 09.06.2006. Despite these transgression evident on the face of the record, the second respondent had given authoritative verdict/Fatwa on the same day on 09.06.2006 holding that marriage was dissolved by way of 'Khula' and the third respondent ceased to be husband of the first petitioner and that he could marry another muslim lady as per Islamic Shariah. The petitioner has sent a representation to the second respondent on 27.07.2006 asking to intervene on the same. The second respondent informed that he gave his opinion based on the letter of the third respondent enclosing the copy of the Khula given by her. The action of the second respondent was highly objectionable.