Posts

Showing posts from November, 2013

Services of Khazi is an optional one - choice of bride and bridegroom - he has no judicial functions - he can issue marriage certificates before whom the marriages performed - he is not for fee - he is appointed by Govt. directly under Khazi Act - Wakf board has no business to interfere with the functions of Khazi - Hence the circular is in valid = The A.P. State Wakf Board rep. by its Chief Executive Officer Razzak Manzil Haj House Nampally, Hyderabad Hafiz Syed Saleem Basha and another = published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydispfree.aspx?filename=7897

Services of Khazi are an optional one - choice of bride and bridegroom - he has no judicial functions - he can issue marriage certificates before whom the marriages performed - he is not for fee - he is appointed by Govt. directly under Khazi Act - Wakf board has no business to interfere with the functions of Khazi - Hence the circular is in valid =

A Circular issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board (for short, "the
Board") vide its No.9/Qazat/2000 dated 30-11-2002 determining the fee payable to
the Kazis/Naib Kazis for performance of a marriage and requiring Kazis to obtain
marriage booklets, shianamas and registers from the Inspector Auditors, A.P.
State Wakf Board of the respective Districts for a sum of 510/- for ten
marriages, =
No doubt, the provisions aforementioned invest the Government with the
power to appoint a Kazi and the Kazi in turn to appoint a Naib Kazi, but the Act
neither confers any legal right on Kazi nor does it cast any duty on him.  A
glance at the provi…

MADRAS HIGH COURT - Writ of Habeas Corpus by divorced mother - who lost custody of minor children to the husband under Muslim divorce decree before Khazi - not maintainable as it is binding on her until cancelled through proper course of law = Tmt.Aisha Rahman Ali .. Petitioner vs 1. The Inspector of Police, = published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/qrydisp.aspx?filename=43315

Writ of Habeas Corpus by divorced mother - who lost custody of minor children to the husband under Muslim divorce decree before Khazi - not maintainable as it is binding on her until cancelled through proper course of law = 

a decree of divorce came to be passed by the Government Khazi, of Karur District on 22.01.2013. It is useful to reproduce the following portion of the decree of divorce, dated: 22.01.2013:
"It is further ordered, that the plaintiff, is the designated legal custodian and is responsible for the care and upbringing of children that were born issue of their marriage Zainab Ansari and Juveria Ansari. 
It is further ordered, that the plaintiff, to provide the expenses of the defendant and the two children during the separated period (6-Jan-2012 to 11-Jan-2013), the settlement amount of Seven hundred and fifty thousand Indian Rupees only (INR 750,000/-) on or before 24-Jan-2013. 
It is further ordered, both parties shall hereafter continue to live separately and neither…

Sec.302 ,341 r/w 34 I.P.C. = No grounds to interfere the acquittal orders of lower court - Appeal is dismissed Appreciation of Evidence = P.Ws.1 and 2 are not eye witnesses to the incident and Other witnesses turned hostile and there is no other evidence to show that the accused are the assailants of the deceased; that opinion of P.W.19 does not lead to draw an inference that it is the accused, who committed the murder of the deceased = THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD., VS MALLAVARAM SANKAR REDDY, & 6 OTHERS, = http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRLA&mno=574&year=2013

 Sec.302 ,341 r/w 34 I.P.C. = No grounds to interfere the acquittal orders of lower court - Appeal is dismissed Appreciation of Evidence = P.Ws.1 and 2 are not eye witnesses to the incident and Other witnesses turned hostile  and there is no other evidence to show that the accused are the assailants of the deceased; that opinion of P.W.19 does not lead to draw an inference that it is the accused, who committed the murder of the deceased =
P.W.1 admitted that he was residing in Harijanawada along with his wife and two children. The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 11 p.m.  In view of the fact that he is having wife and children, in normal circumstances, P.W.1 would have been present at his house.  If he was present at his house, there was no scope or possibility for him to witness the incident.  He had not given any convincing reason for staying in the upstairs of the house of the deceased on the fateful day of the incident.  Therefore, that is the reason why the trial Court …