AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amberson Marten, C.J.—The only point raised in this appeal is that the wife did not observe her period of iddat as required by Mahomedan law, and that, therefore, there is no valid divorce. This is founded on the suggestion that Mahomedan law requires the wife to observe her iddat entirely in the house of her husband. For that proposition a passage was cited from a work on Mussalman Law by Abdur Rahman at p. 180.
But, on looking at the authorities to which the author refers, and in particular to Hamilton''s Hedaya at pp. 133 and 134, it is perfectly clear that the proposition of law contended for by the appellant is entirely erroneous. On the contrary, it is stated at page 133 :-
It is incumbent upon a woman under Edit that she observe and accomplish the same in the place where she was resident at the period of divorce taking place...whether that be her own accustomed dwelling, or a house where she may be upon a visit (that of her parents, for instance), because this is so ordered in the Koran ; and it also appears in the traditionary precepts of the Prophet that he said to a woman whose husband was slain, ''stay in your own house until your Edit be accomplished.''
In the present case when the Talaq (Ex. 35) was pronounced by the husband, the wife was staying in the house of her father, where she remained to perform her iddat. Accordingly, the requirements of Mahomedan law were satisfied.
This appeal will, therefore, be dismissed with costs.