Sayed Aqueel Ahmed Qadri v. Nooruzia Qadri
Case at a glance
Outcome
Partly allowed
Appeal is partly allowed in terms of the above decree
Provisions considered
- Family Courts Act, 1984 ss. 7, 19
- Shariat Act, 1937
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Appeal is partly allowed in terms of the above decree. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
Judgment
This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arises from the decree of divorce dated 13th February 2004 passed by the Family Court at Mumbai thereby allowing Petition No.A-826 of 2003 filed by the respondent – wife.
The parties were married on 4/7/1999 at Mumbai 2 according to the Islamic Rites and from the said wedlock they begot a son by name Reyhan. The appellant is employed with Saudi Arabian Airlines and prior to the marriage as well as thereafter continued to be in Saudi Arabia. The wife approached the Family Court for dissolution of marriage in Petition No. A-826 of 2003 under Section 2(II), IV, VIII and IX of the Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 and Shariat Act, 1937 as well as under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. While granting the decree of divorce the Family Court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month to the petitioner during the Iddat period and a sum of Rs.3000/- per month towards the maintenance of the child. He has been further directed to regularly deposit the said amount with the Family Court on or before 10th day of each English calendar month. In addition the appellant has been directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the wife towards one time lump sum reasonable provision. The permanent custody of the minor son has been given to the wife.
Admittedly during the pendency of this appeal the appellant is remarried and, therefore, the challenge to the decree of divorce has been given up. During the course of the 3
arguments before us the learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from the appellant’s father and mother who were present before us, submitted that without prejudice to all his contentions the appellant is ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the son if the said amount is invested in fixed deposit with any nationalised bank, in lieu of the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid to the wife towards one time lump sum reasonable provision. The wife is represented by her father who was present before us and Mr. Saeed Akhtar, the learned counsel for the wife, on instructions from her father, stated that the proposal made on behalf of the appellant is acceptable. It was also stated by Mr.Akhtar that on such a settlement, the wife is willing to give up the payment of Rs.5000/- per month for the Iddat period. It is also stated across the bar that the payment of Rs.3000/- per month towards the maintenance of the son is being made and the appellant undertakes to continue to pay the said amount.
In the premises following order is passed: (a) The decree of divorce passed by the Family Court in Petition No.A-826 of 2003 thereby dissolving 4 the marriage between the parties solemnised on 4/7/1999 is hereby confirmed. (b) The appellant shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the respondent so as to invest the said amount in the name of Reyhan and to be invested in his name by way of fixed deposit in a nationalised bank. The said amount shall be paid at the rate of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) per month for the first six months and Rs.50,000/- for the seventh month and on receipt of the said amount the respondent shall invest the entire amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) in the name of Syed Reyhan Ahmed Qadri son of Syed Aqueel Ahmed Qadri. The amount so payable may also be deposited directly by the appellant in the bank account, the number of which shall be intimated by the respondent.
The fixed deposit receipt shall remain in the custody of the respondent – Nooruzia Qazi and a copy of the same shall be handed over to the appellant – father. In the fixed deposit to be made in the name of Syed Reyhan Ahmed Qadri both his 5 parents i.e. Ms. Nooruzia Qazi and Syed Aqueel Ahmed Qadri will be shown as his guardians. (c) The investment so made shall not be withdrawn by any of the parties until Syed Reyhan Ahmed Qadri attains majority and thereafter it will be for him to take a decision in regard to the said amount and its utilisation. (d) The interest accrued on the fixed deposit shall be allowed to be withdrawn by Ms.Nooruzia Qazi and she shall utilize the said amount for the educational / medical expenses of Syed Reyhan Ahmed Qadri. (e) In consideration of the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- to the minor son, the respondent has given up her claim of Rs.5,00,000/- towards one time lump sum reasonable provision and she has agreed that she shall not raise any other monetary claim against the appellant henceforth.
6 (f) The respondent has agreed that the appellant’s mother will have the visiting rights and she can visit Reyhan on every Sunday at her father’s house who is also the cousin of the appellant’s mother. Visiting hours of the appellant’s mother shall be decided in consultation with each other. This order will not take away the rights of the appellant and his parents to apply for access during his school vacations / holidays in future, if so required.
Operative part
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal is partly allowed in terms of the above decree
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Family Courts Act, 1984 — ss. 7, 19; Shariat Act, 1937.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Feb 2004. The bench was S VAZIFDAR, B H MARLAPALLE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.