cover image: The Calcutta Weekly Notes  January 26  1948

Premium

20.500.12592/jf82gz

The Calcutta Weekly Notes January 26 1948

1948

It had been assumed for some time and there were a few cases in the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court holding that the law was that on a conversion of one of the parties to the marriage the convert might ask the other party to become a convert also and on his or her refusal to do SO. [...] It also seems that in the cases of Nurjehan v. Tiscenko and Sayeda v. Abediah it never occurred to any body that even under the rule of Mahommedan law the marriages in question could not have been dissolved; the Mahommedan law as laid down by the Hedaya and the Fatwa is definite that a marriage between Kitabias is not dissolved by the conversion of one of the spouses to Islam. [...] The interrogatory whether the non-convert is willing to embrace Islam has to be made by the Kazi (and not by the converted party as was done in all the cases decided in India) and the Kazi is to dissolve the marriage if necessary. [...] So far as Dar-ul-Hurb is concerned the rule is that on conversion of one of the spouses. the marriage becomes completely repudiated" on the lapse of three menstrual courses of the woman if in the ean time the other party does not embrace Islam. [...] The rule in the Hedaya says If the wife embraces the faith in a foreign country and her husband be an infidel or if a foreigner there becomes a Mussalman and his wife be a Moosajea the separation between them does not take place' until the lapse of three terms of the wife's courses when it becomes completely repudiated." The rule itself contemplates the conversion of a foreigner; a foreigner "H
law
Pages
4
Published in
India
SARF Document ID
sarf.100104
Segment Pages Author Actions
The Calcutta Weekly Notes January 26 1948
xxxv-xxxviii unknown view

Related Topics

All