DISSOLUTION OF MUSLIM MARRIAGES ACT, 1939
(b) 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 per son
or through an authorised agent within that period and satisfies the Court that he
is prepared to perform his conjugal duties, the Court shall set aside the said
decree; and
(c) 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.
COMMENTS
A mere non-maintenance for the statutory period entitles the wife to sue for dissolution:
A. YausufRawtherv. Sowmmma A.I.R. 1971 Ker. 261.
Bigamy is permitted as per Muslim Law under exceptional circumstances. The circumstances under which it is permitted also have to be taken note of. Even to have a second wife, certain conditions have to be satisfied by the husband including the financial capacity, the physical capacity and capability of treating more than one wife without discrimination and to give both of them equal conveniences and considerations in life: K. Muhamma Latheefv. Nishath A.I.R. 2004 Ker. 22 (D.B.).
A Mahomedan wife, leaving her husband voluntarily and refusing to .come back despite requests without any justifiable ground for staying away, cannot claim dissolution of marriage on the ground of her husband having failed or neglected to provide maintenance for her: Mabiya Khatun Bibiv. Shaikh Anwar AH A.I.R. 1971 Cal. 218 (D.B.).
S. 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 which sets out that if the husband is suffering from a virulent venereal disease, a woman married under Muslim Law to such person shall be entitled to obtain a decree for dissolution of her marriage. Therefore, if a person suffering from the dreadful disease “AIDS”, knowingly marries a woman and thereby transmits infection to that woman, he would be guilty of offences indicated in Ss.269and270oftheI.P.Code:Xv.ZA.LR.1999S.C495.
Merely because the plaintiff wife declined to be medically examined, no adverse inference can be drawn that she was not virgo intacta’, such examination cannot unerringly establish that she was not so; hymen is usually present in a virgo intacta in some form or other, but in rare cases it is congenitally absent; the presence of hymen may not always prove non-intercourse; there is no dearth of instances of women having conceived with the hymen uninjured: Kalluvalappil v. Parayangat Veerankutty (1988) 1 Ker.L.T. 591: (1988) 2 Hindu L.R. 775: (1989) 1 D.M.C. 396.
Under S. 2(viii), the wife should prove both physical and legal cruelty to entitle her to claim dissolution of marriage: RMa Khatoon v. Mohd. Mukhtar Ahmad 1966 All.LJ. 182: A.I.R. 1966 All. 548.
It is cruelty to force a young woman, who was desirous of becoming a mother, to abort her pregnancy, when it is not necessitated to save her own life: Siddhique v. Amina (1996) 2 Hindu L.R. 415: (1997) 2 D.M.C. 260 (Ker.).
3. Notice to be served on heirs of the husband when the husband’s whereabouts are not known.—In a suit to which clause (i) of section 2 applies,—
(a) the names and addresses of the persons who would have been the heirs of the husband under Muslim law if he had died on the date of the filing of the plaint shall be stated in the plaint,
(b) notice of the suit shall be served on such persons, and
(c) such persons shall have the right to be heard in the suit:
