- (1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judg ment and order dated 30-11-2006, passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, in Case No. 140 of 2004, whereby the peti tioner appellant's petition, moved under Section 3 read with Section 4 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) S Act, 1986, is dismissed.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/appellant Reshma got married to respondent No. 1 Rashid S/o Mursalin on 21-5-2001, according to the Muslim rites. The 5 allegation of the petitioner in her petition is that gifts and dowry were given in the mar riage by the father of the petitioner according to his economic status. However, the respon dents were not happy with the same. It is fur ther alleged that on 20th June, 2002, they asked the petitioner to bring Rs. 20,000/- from her parents, which were arranged and given to the respondents. Thereafter, the demand was increased for Rs. 50,000/- and the respon dents told the petitioner that if the demand is not met by 10th September, 2004, the respon dent No. 1 would divorce her. Petitioner's case is that when the demand of Rs. 50,000/-was not fulfilled and the respondent No. 2 Rashid pronounced 'i TALAK YOU' (thrice) to divorce the petitioner not only in her pres ence, but in the presence of her father, brother, neighbour Sonu and other persons. It is fur ther pleaded by the petitioner/appellant that on 10-9-2004, when she was divorced by her husband, she became entitled to mehar as well as for the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- for the period of iddat, and also for return of the articles given in the dowry val ued Rs. 65,000/ -. Hence, this petition was filed for mehar, amounting to Rs. 551/-; main tenance for the period of iddat and also for return of the articles of dowry. The respondent No. 1 contested the pe tition and filed his written statement. He ad mitted having got married to the petitioner on 21-5-2001, according to the Muslim rites. However, rest of the contents of the petition were denied by the contesting respondent (husband ). In the additional pleas it is stated that there was no demand of dowry from the side of the respondents. It is alleged by the respondent No. 1 that it was the petitioner who committed cruelty against the answering re spondent. Denying that any demand of Rs. 20,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- was made by him or his parents, it is further stated that respon dent No. 1 did not divorce the petitioner and is ready to discharge his duties as her hus band.
(3.) IN the above circumstances, and on the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed following issues on 21-2-2005: i) Whether, the petitioner is still wife of Rashid ? ii) Whether, the petitioner is entitled to mehar amount and maintenance and articles from the respondents, claimed by her ? iii) Whether, the respondents made demand of dowry, as alleged ? iv) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled ? The trial court probably lost the sight of order dated 21-2-2005, and framed following two issues on 3- 11-2006: i) Whether, the alleged divorce between the parties is lawful, and has the petitioner com pleted the period of Iddat? ii) Whether, the divorce between the par ties was entered in writing before the witnesses, and signed by them? Again on 13-11-2006, an additional issue is framed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, as under: iii) Whether, the divorce between the par ties was in the form of Talak-ul-bidaat? Thereafter, the trial court (Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee) directed the parties to adduce the evidence on their be half. On behalf of the petitioner, she got her self examined as P. W. 1 Reshma, and also got examined P. W. 2 Raes; P. W. 3 Sabir Ali; P. W. 4 Mohd. Haseen; P. W. 5 Shakeela, and P. W. 6 Sagir. On behalf of the respondents no one was got examined. Though, the evidence ad duced by the petitioner remained uncontro-verted, still the trial court after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition for the reasons that the divorce is not preceded by pre-conference for settlement and that the divorce is not in the written form. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, we find that the trial court has committed grave error of law in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner (present appellant) on the above grounds. Before further discussion, we think it proper to mention here what is Talak-ul-bidaat, under the Muslim law. Ameer Ali in his commentary on Mahommedan Law defines Talak-ul-bidaat, as under: "in the Talak-ul-bidaat, the husband may pronounce the three formulae at one time, whether the wife is in a state of tahir or not. The separation then taken effect definitely af ter the woman has fulfilled her iddat or pe riod of probation. " The significant feature of Talak-ul-bidaat is that it is irrevocable. Ordinarily, Talak-ul-bidaat is pronounced in triple form eg. by say ing "i divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee. " The triple pronouncement can be made either in a single 'tuhr' at one time or at inter vals, but after the same is pronounced for three times, it becomes irrevocable. In other words, talak-ul-bidaat can be revoked only before the third pronouncement, and not thereafter.;