:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2084 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 2084 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 2084 OF 2008 Heena w/o. Mohammed Cadri ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A. A. Siddiqui i/b. M/s. A. A. Siddiqui & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Milind More, AGP for the State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 20TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATE : 20TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATE : 20TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays that this court should issue a writ or direction after examining the divorce dated 18.4.2008 pronounced by the respondent No.2 under the Mohammedan Law and after examining the legality and propriety of the divorce dated 18.4.2008 declare the same as illegal, bad, null and void in view of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dagdu vs. Rahimbi Dagdu Pathan reported in II (2002) DMC 315 :2: (FB). 2. We are afraid this writ petition itself is not maintainable. Respondent No.2 is the husband of the petitioner and it is alleged that he has executed and sent through the Quazi of Mohkama-E-Sharia Darul Quaza Rehmaniya, a Registered Body, in furtherance of his letter dated 21.4.2008 where he has informed the petitioner that she had been causing torture, harassment, mental agony to the husband and the mother continuously and thus desirous to divorce her in accordance with Mohammedan Law. Allegedly, a Talaknama and 2 demand drafts as and by way of the amount of Meher and Iddat period were also sent. The contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the law declared by Full Bench, this Court is obliged to interfere in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and quash the divorce dated 18.4.2008. Further 18.4.2008 is a Certificate issued by the Quazi and we hardly can read this a divorce of the parties. We are unable to find any merit in this petition. All these matters will require detailed evidence and correctness, legality or otherwise of the divorce dated 18.4.2008 will be gone into and :3: examined only upon proper evidence being led before the court of competent jurisdiction. Article 226 is not proper remedy for the petitioner in this case. Petition dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J.