IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 34729 of 2007(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.MOHAMMED KOYAN, S/O. LATE C.A.KASIM ROWTHER, AGED 72 YEARS, EX-SUBEDAR, KATHANPOTTA HOUSE, CHITTALAMCHERI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE ZILLA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICER, DEN'S MARKET, MARKET ROAD, PALAKKAD. 2. SENIOR RECORD OFFICER, OIC RECORDS, RECORDS THE MAHAR REGIMENT, C/O 56 APO, PIN-900 127. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 4. NASARATH, D/O. C.A.KASIN, KALLATHANI HOUSE, CHITTILAMCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 34729/2007 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE JUMATH MOSQUE COMMITTEE, CHITTILANCHERY DT. 09/10/98. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 11/3/99 TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R2. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 15/6/07 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE R4. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE ISSUED BY THE CHITTILANCHERY MUHIYUDHEEN PALLIMAHALLU JUMAATH COMMITTEE SHOWING THE PETITIONER HAVING DIVORCED THE R4 DT. 22/6/07. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE LETER SENT THROUGH THE R1 TO THE R2 DT. 4/09/07. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE EXTRACT UNDER THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT DT. 18/07/07 SHOWING THE REMARRIAGE OF THE R4. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. JC/43893/NE. B DT. 12/10/2007 BY THE R2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 34729 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 4, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition the challenge is against Ext.P7 and the relief sought for is to direct respondents 1 to 3 to publish Part II order recording the removal of the 4th respondent as next of kin of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner being a Muslim has divorced the 4th respondent taking recourse to Talak. It is stated that when he applied for removal of her name from Part II order, it has been declined requiring the petitioner to obtain a decree of divorce from a court of law. It is also stated in Ext.P7 that he has to produce the details of his children. According to the petitioner he has no children in the marriage that is divorced and hence there is no question of production of any details of the children sought for in Ext.P7. 3. Petitioner contends that he being a Muslim and divorce having been obtained by Talak, there is no question of any production of a decree of divorce. As stated by the petitioner, in WP(C) 34729/07 Page numbers terms of his personal laws Talak being a valid system of divorce, there cannot be a decree of court and to that extent the stand taken by the respondent Ext.P7 cannot be upheld. Therefore I dispose of the writ petition directing that respondents 1 to 3 shall publish Part II order removing the name of the 4th respondent as next of kin of the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-