Introduction

• The case dealt with the restitution of conjugal rights in Muslim Law.

Facts

• Mohammad Shafi filed a lawsuit against his wife Mt. Ghulam Kubra seeking the restitution of conjugal rights.
  • Additionally, he implicated her parents, seeking an injunction to prevent them from interfering in his marital relationship.
• Mt. Ghulam Kubra's defense was based on the assertion that she was never married to Mohammad Shafi.
  • The question of the woman's age at the time of the purported marriage also arose, leading to the presentation of evidence by both parties.
• A Mullah testified, stating that he conducted the nikah upon the grandfather's request.
  • He categorically denied that anyone was sent to the girl to enquire from her whether she agreed to the marriage.
• One person named Mistri Abdul Karim, however, provided vague testimony, mentioning two witnesses without disclosing their identities.
  • Two witnesses, Mohammad Ramzan and Mohammad Din, claimed to have witnessed the nikah but were brief in their statements, providing no further details.
  • Mohammad Ramzan admitted to being the plaintiff's neighbour, while Mohammad Din acknowledged the plaintiff's employment with him for the past 8 or 9 years.
• The trial Judge concluded that the girl was eligible to marry during the marriage and deemed the marriage established.
  • Consequently, he granted the decree as requested against all defendants.
• An appeal was filed with the District Court, where both parties agreed that the girl was eligible to marry at the time of marriage.
  • The Judge upheld the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights but decided against issuing an injunction on the girl's parents.
• Consequently, the appeal was partially accepted, specifically overturning the injunction-related portion of the order.

Issues Involved

• Whether parties were competent to give consent at the time of marriage?
• Whether there was a proposal and acceptance to the marriage?
• Whether witnesses were present, and the consent of the bride was given in front of them?
• Whether restitution of conjugal rights can be granted?

Observation

• The Court said that the customary practice prevalent in India for solemnizing marriages necessitates a thorough demonstration of the entire marriage procedure.
• This is crucial to refute the vague claim that there were two witnesses to the nikah and to establish that the entire process was duly followed.
• Particularly noteworthy is the assertion of the individual officiating the nikah, affirming that no one came to ascertain the girl's willingness to marry.
• According to the records, the girl was 17 years old when the marriage was solemnized.
• The court said that it appears that the parties involved were unaware of the Islamic law stipulating that a girl attains majority for marriage purposes upon reaching puberty, typically presumed to be at the age of 15.
  • Court further said that it seems they erroneously believed she could not be considered a major until 18 years of age, as per general law.
• Consequently, the girl was given away by her grandfather without direct consultation.
• Under Islamic law, when a girl is a minor, it is permissible for her father, grandfather, or other paternal relatives to give her away, resulting in a valid marriage known as nikah.
• In this case, the witnesses presented merely attested to being witnesses of the nikah.
  • There is uncertainty regarding whether they witnessed the giving away of the girl by the grandfather.
• Considering these factors, it was determined that no valid marriage transpired, and consequently, the plaintiff lacks the right to pursue a case for the restitution of conjugal rights.

Conclusion

• The appeal of Mt. Ghulam Kubra (wife) was accepted, and the suit of Mohammad Shafi is dismissed with costs throughout.