Case :

Tara bano v
mohmd. iqbal
Facts are as follows
 They married while tara bano was
only of 7 years
She remarried when she was 15
years with another man
So Iqbal Mohd. Filled the case
against her and court held in
favour of her
Matter in trial court and decision
The trail court : Respondent did
not obtain any decree of
dissolution of marriage form civil
court under section 2 of dissolution
of muslim marriage act 1939
therefore her first marriage is valid
So ,It was favour in of iqbal
Her approach in civil court as per
section 100 – The 2nd appeal
 Mr. M. siddiqui : it is not necessary to
obtain decree of dissolution under
section 2 of the act while she is
exercising her right of "Khyar-Ul-
Bulugh"(option of puberty)
 Also she was only 7 years of age , she
didn’t knew what was marriage
moreover she never lived with him
reliance
 Both Appellant and respondent were
relied on previous judgement
 Repondent was relied on case
mahommad v state of M.P
 Appellant was relied on case mustafa vs
khursida
Ruling in respondent case
 Here the respondent wants that she
must follow the procedure section 482
of Cr.Pc in which the repudiation is
required to be confirmed by the Court
 Even under the Dissolution of Muslim
Marriages Act, 1939, a decree of the
Court dissolving of the marriage is
necessary.
Appellant case
 in his case ,he quoted Mohammadan Law
(namely, Sections 272 and Section 2 (vii))
 Section 272.mainly says that marriage is voidable if the
father or father’s father entered into contract negligently or
the contract is manifested in disadvantage of the minor
 Section 2. puts Grounds for decree for dissolution of
marriage for muslim women
 Relevant clause (vii) 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
 Held
 It was in favour of the appellant – wife
 Section 482 of Cr.Pc is not valid in this case because of
section 2 (vii)option of puberty
 the judgment of the first appellate Court and trail court will
not be valid
 it is held that respondent Iqbal Mohd Is not entitled to
decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant