RESHMA Vs. RASHID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judg ment and order dated 30-11-2006, passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, in Case No. 140 of 2004, whereby the peti tioner appellant's petition, moved under Section 3 read with Section 4 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) S Act, 1986, is dismissed.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.

(3.) IN the above circumstances, and on the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed following issues on 21-2-2005: i) Whether, the petitioner is still wife of Rashid ? ii) Whether, the petitioner is entitled to mehar amount and maintenance and articles from the respondents, claimed by her ? iii) Whether, the respondents made demand of dowry, as alleged ? iv) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled ? The trial court probably lost the sight of order dated 21-2-2005, and framed following two issues on 3- 11-2006: i) Whether, the alleged divorce between the parties is lawful, and has the petitioner com pleted the period of Iddat? ii) Whether, the divorce between the par ties was entered in writing before the witnesses, and signed by them? Again on 13-11-2006, an additional issue is framed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, as under: iii) Whether, the divorce between the par ties was in the form of Talak-ul-bidaat? Thereafter, the trial court (Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee) directed the parties to adduce the evidence on their be half. On behalf of the petitioner, she got her self examined as P. W. 1 Reshma, and also got examined P. W. 2 Raes; P. W. 3 Sabir Ali; P. W. 4 Mohd. Haseen; P. W. 5 Shakeela, and P. W. 6 Sagir. On behalf of the respondents no one was got examined. Though, the evidence ad duced by the petitioner remained uncontro-verted, still the trial court after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition for the reasons that the divorce is not preceded by pre-conference for settlement and that the divorce is not in the written form.