Daily Archives: October 1, 2016

How a subsequent talaq will NOT save you from DV and maintenance – madras HC 

There is in an erroneous view among some people who think that a subsequent talaq will save them from domestic violence cases or maintenance cases… 

In today’s India it is almost impossible for men of Any community a caste or religion to escape from paying money once the woman wants to start making you !!
===== case from Madras High Court =====

DATED: 09.06.2015



CRL.O.P.(MD)No.12511 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014
1.T.Nazar deen

2.Habib Mydeen



5.Abdul Samadu .. Petitioners/A1 to A5
           .. Vs ..

Sumsunisha .. Respondent

Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records relating to MC No.15/2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tuticorin and to quash the same.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.Moorthy

^For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar

The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A5 seek quash of the proceedings in MC No.15/2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tuticorin.

2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

3.The first petitioner is the husband and the other petitioners are his relatives and they seek quash of proceedings initiated by the wife on the ground that there is no domestic relationship in view of the alleged Talaq pronounced. Vinayak.WordPress.com 

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Talaq has already been pronounced. Therefore, there is a termination of relationship of husband and wife. Hence, the petition filed by the respondent for maintenance is not maintainable.

5.Placing reliance on decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 241 and the unreported decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Appeal (Crl.) 465 of 1996 between Shamia Ara and State of U.P. and another, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the case on hand. The alleged Talaq has been pronounced during the pendency of the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate. The subsequent unilateral pronouncement of Talaq will not make the petition filed for maintenance as not maintainable.

  6.In Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 241, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: 29. In the present case, the alleged domestic violence took place between January 2006 and 6.9.2007 when FIR No.224 of 2007 was lodged by the appellant under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the first respondent and his relatives. In a writ petition filed by the first respondent the High Court refused to quash the said FIR against him observing that prima facie case under Section 498-A was made out against him. Even if it is accepted that the appellant during the pendency of the SLP before this Court has obtained ex parte ?Khula? (divorce) under the Muslim Personal Law from the Mufti on 9.5.2008, the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable. 30. An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 including monetary relief under Section 20, child custody under Section 21, compensation under Section 22 and interim or ex parte order under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.?  Vinayak.WordPress.com 

  7.It is seen that the case is at the trial stage. The petitioners instead of raising the plea before the Court below has come forward to file this petition. The protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a beneficial legislation. The proceedings have to be completed within two months. Prima facie the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is quite applicable to the present case. The question as to whether the Talaq has been pronounced in accordance with law or not is a question of fact.

  8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tuticorin is directed to dispose of M.C.No.15 of 2014 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed.


1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tuticorin.