SYED WASIULLAH HUSSAINI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are filed by the accused Nos.1,2,4 to 6, 8 and 9 (Al, A2, A4 to A6, A8 and A9) under Section 482 Cr.P.C, for quashing proceedings in CC No.2077 of 2002 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, (East and North), Ranga Reddy District relating to offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C.

(2.) The 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant is wife of Al. A2 is father of Al. A4 to A6 are sisters of Al. A8 is husband of A6. A9 is husband of A7. A7 is another sister of Al. A3 is mother of Al. It is stated that A3 and A7 are no more. A4 is an Advocate. A5 and A6 are working as teachers. A9 is in Government service. Marriage of Al with the 2nd respondent took place on 20.8.1998.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner's Counsel that AI pronounced triple 'talaq' to the 2nd respondent as per Mohammed Law and communicated the same to 2nd respondent and that therefore, the present case cannot be allowed to be proceeded with because of termination of marital relationship between Al and the 2nd respondent as husband and wife. Reliance was placed on Syed Hyder Hussain v. State of A.P., 2002 1 ALD(Cri) 339, of this Court on this aspect. In that reported decision, the husband pronounced 'Talaq' on 9.4.1997 and it was communicated to the police on 15.4.1997 along with divorce certificate issued by the A.P. Wakf Board. Allegations in the charge-sheet in that case was that there was demand for dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- on 28.4.1997. Counsel appearing for the wife in that case contended that even after the so-called divorce, the parties were residing under the same roof as husband and wife and therefore, Section 498A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are attracted. This Court while repelling the said contention held that in 'Shias' after the husband divorced his wife by pronouncing triple 'talaq', he is prevented from marrying the same woman again and therefore, provisions of Section 498A IPC and that of the Dowry Prohibition Act do not apply. This decision has absolutely no application to facts of the present case.