Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act 1939

Dissolution of MuslimMarriages Act 1939 lays down several other grounds on the basis of whicha Muslim wife may get her divorce decree passed by the order of the court.

Section – 2 Groundsfor decree for dissolution of marriage –

A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more ofthe following grounds, namely:

1. That the whereabouts of thehusband have not been known for aperiod of four years

If the husband is missing for a period of four years the wife may file a petition for the dissolutionof her marriage. The husband is deemed to be missing if the wife or any such person who is expected to have knowledge of the husband, is unable to locate the husband

1. That the husbandhas neglected or has failed toprovide for her maintenance for a period oftwo years

       It is a legal obligation of everyhusband to maintain his wife, and if he fails to do so,the wife may seek divorce on this ground.

1. That the husbandhas been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years or upwards.

       The wife's right of judicial divorce on this ground begins from the date on which the sentence becomes final. Therefore, the decree can be passed inher favor only after the expiry of the date for appeal by the husband or after the appeal by the husband has been dismissed by the final court

1. That the husband has failed to perform, without reasonable cause, his marital obligations fora period of threeyears

1. That the husband has impotent at the time of the marriage and continues to be so

       For gettinga decree of divorce on this ground,the wife has to prove that the husband was impotent at the time ofthe marriage and continues to be impotent till the filingof the suit. Before passing adecree of divorce of divorce on this ground, the court is bound to give to the husband one year to improve his potency provided he makes an application for it. If the husband does not give such application, the court shall pass the decreewithout delay.

In Gul Mohd. Khan v. Hasina the wife filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of impotency. The husband made an application before the court seeking an order for proving his potency.The court allowed him to prove his potency.

1. That the husband has been insane for a period of two years or is suffering from leprosy or a virulent venereal disease

       The husband's insanity must be for two or more years immediately preceding the presentation of the suit. The Act provides that this diseasemust be of incurable nature.It may be of any duration. Moreover, even if this disease has been infected to thehusband by the wife herself, she is entitled to get divorceon this ground.

1. That she, having been given in marriage by her father or other guardian before she attained the age of fifteen years., repudiated the marriage before attaining the age of eighteen years. Provide that the marriage has not been consummated;

1. That the husband treats her with cruelty, that is to say. -
2. Habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruelty of conduct does not amount to physical ill-treatment, or
3. Associates with women of evil reputeor leads an infamous life, or
4. Attempts to force her to lead an immoral life, or
5. Disposes of her propertyor prevents her exercising her legal rights over it,or
6. Obstructs her in the observance of her religious profession or practice, or
7.  If he has more wives than one, does not treat her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran;

1. On any other ground which is recognized as valid for the dissolution of marriages under Muslim law;

Provide that—

1. No decree shall be passedon the ground (iii) until the sentence has become final;
2. A decree passed on ground (i) shall not take effect for a period of six months from the date of such decree, and if the husband appears either in person or through an authorized agent within that period and satisfied the Court that he is prepared to perform his conjugal duties, the Court shall set asidethe said decree;and
3. Before passing a decree on ground (v) the Court shall, on application by the husband, make an order requiring the husband to satisfy the Court within a period of one year from the date of such order that he has ceased to be impotent, and if the husband so satisfies the Court within such period, no decree shall be passed on the said ground.

In case NAJMUS SABA V SAHIL RAZMEE

Wife is entitled for divorce on the following grounds which is mention under section-2 of dissolution of marriage act

1. Section 2 (2) That the husband has neglected or has failed to provide for her maintenance for aperiod of two years.

Explanation- it is the legal obligation of husband to maintain his wife. A husband cannot avoid his obligation to maintain his wife

1. Section 2 (4) That the husband has failed to perform, without reasonable cause, his maritalobligations for a period of three years

Explanation- when a husband without any reasonable cause failed to perform his marital obligation for a time of 3 yearsthan a Muslim wife can file for decree for divorce from the court.

1. Section2 (8) That the husband treats her with cruelty, that is to say. -
2. Habitually assaults her or makesher life miserable by cruelty of conduct does not amount to physicalill-treatment,

Under Section 498-A of IPC the expression “cruelty” has been defined in wide terms to incorporate inflicting physicalor mental damage to the body or health of the womanand indulging in acts of harassment to force her orher relations to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuablesecurity.

MAINTENANCE

Initially, a misconception existed that a working woman is not entitled to claim maintenance as she is earning and is thus able to maintain herself.

Now, based on the judgments in cases like Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi (1975) 2SCC 38 and Chaturbhuj v Sita Bai, 2008 - it is evident that wife can claim maintenance even though she is earning.

The SC of India, in this regard, has ruled that an estranged woman can claim maintenance from her husband in spite of her efforts to earn a monthly income if that is not enough for her maintenance. It also clarifies that the expression ‘Unable to maintain herself’ does not require a wife to be absolute destitute before she can apply for maintenance.

IN CASE OF CHATURBHUJ V SITABAI 2008

It was held that wife can claim alimony even if she is earning. The apex court in this regard an estranged womancan claim maintenance from her husbandin spite of her effortsto earn a monthly income if that is not enough for her maintenance. It also clarifies that the expression ‘Unable to maintain herself’ does not require a wife to be absolute destitute before she can apply for maintenance

The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in a recent case, Ramiz Raza vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. has held that a wife has statutory right to seek maintenance from her husband irrespective of the fact that whethershe is an earning individual or not. The relevant excerptof the Hon’ble Supreme Court is as follows:

“It is well settled, by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Dutt (supra) that even a wife having asubstantial income of her own oreven a working lady is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. Though initially it was a misconception that a working woman is not entitled to claim maintenance since she has some substantial income and is able to maintain herself, but in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the said case it is evidentthat she can claim maintenance even though she is an earning lady.”

Though the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has clarified the well settled aspect of the right to maintenance for the earning wives, there have been numerous occasions where the family courts and various High Courts come to a differentconclusion subject to the peculiarfacts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above. Though the Ramiz Raza judgment was delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in February, 2020, but it is to be kept in mind that the Hon’ble Court merely reiterated the law which was no more res Integra.