1.

PLEADINGS AND LEGAL FORMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES

ON PROCEDURE OF THE SHARI’AH COURTS ( IJRA – AT AL MAHAKIM AL SHARIA)

1. Example of a Complaint (Da’wa)

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL AUTONOMOUS GOVERNMENT
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH Shari’a District Court
Cotabato City

RAKMA IBRAHIM SCC Case No. 86-017

Mudda’I (Plaintiff)

-Versus – - For –

ZAID MOHAMMAD COLLECTION OF MAHR

Mudda-aalai’(Defendant)
X----------------------------------------X

DA’WA (COMPLAINT)

Mudda’I (Plaintiff), through counsel, alleges:

1. That Mudda’I ( Plaintiff isof legal age, married, housekeeper, Muslim Filipino
and residing in Bagua, Cotabato City where she may be servedwith summons and other court
Processes; and Mudda’alai’ (Defendant is likewise of legal age, government employee and
residing in Bagua, Cotabato City where he may be served with summons and other court
processes;
2. That Plaintiff and Defendant were married sometime on February 14, 1985 in
Cotabato City in accordance with Muslim Law;
3. That the Mahr agreed upon in the marriage settlement was in the amount of P3,
000.00 which was witnessed by competent persons;
4. That defendant was able to pay only P1, 500.00 leaving a balance of P1, 500.00
which he promised to settle on or before December 31, 1985 in the presence of competent
persons.
5. That defendant, inspite of the fact that the obligation has become due and
demandable, refused and still refuses to pay inspite of several demands made on him;
6. That in order to vindicate her right, plaintiff was forced to secure the legal
services of a counsel (wakil) to whom she was obligated to pay the sum of P1, 000.00 as
attorney’s fee;
7. That as further consequences of the refusal of the defendantto pay his obligation,
Plaintiff suffered and still suffering frommental anguish, serious anxiety and wounded feeling for
which she is entitled for moral damages which may be conservatively set at P3, 000.00
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment
be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and defendant shall be ordered:
a) To order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P1, 500.00 which
corresponds to the balance of the Mahr;
b) To order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P1, 000.00 as attorney’s
fee;
c) To order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P3, 000.00 by way of
moral damages;
d) To order the defendant to pay the cost of this litigation
e) Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances.

Cotabato City, June 9, 1986.

RAKMA IBRAHIM
Mudda’I (Plaintiff)

VERIFICATION

That I, RAKMA IBRAHIM, of legal age, married, Muslim Filipino, housekeeper and
residing in Bagua, Cotabato City depose and say:
That I am the Mudda’I (Plaintiff) in the above entitled case;
That I have caused the preparation of the same; and that all the contents thereof are true
and correct according to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Cotabato City, June 9, 1986.

RAKMA IBRAHIM
Mudda’I (Plaintiff)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me this 9th day of June 1986 at Cotabato City,
Philippines.
 ______________________

2. Example of Summons

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL AUTONOMOUS GOVERNMENT
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH Shari’a District Court
Cotabato City

RAKMA IBRAHIM SCC Case No. 86-017

Mudda’I (Plaintiff)

-Versus – - For –

ZAID MOHAMMAD COLLECTION OF MAHR

Mudda-aala’(Defendant)
X----------------------------------------X
SUMMONS

TO:
1. Mr. Zaid Mohammad, Defendant
Bagua, Cotabato City

G R E E T I N G S:
You are hereby required to enter your appearance in the above-entitled case within ten
(10) days after the service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service, and to
answer the complaint of the plaintiff which is attached and served upon, within ten (10) days as
fixed by the shari’a Special Rules of Procedure (IJRA-AT AL Mahakim Al Shari’a). if you fail
to appear and answer within the period aforesaid, this court will moto propio hear the case ex-
parte, upon judgment shall be rendered.

WITNESS the honorable _____________ Judge of this court, this ___th day of June
1986 at Cotabato City, Philippines.

FAIL NOT UNDER THE PENALTY OF LAW.

__________________
Clerk of court
3. Example of an answer

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL AUTONOMOUS GOVERNMENT
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH Shari’a District Court
Cotabato City

RAKMA IBRAHIM SCC Case No. 86-017

Mudda’I (Plaintiff)

-Versus – - For –

ZAID MOHAMMAD COLLECTION OF MAHR

Mudda-aala’(Defendant)
X----------------------------------------X

ANSWER

Defendant, in answer to the complaint, alleges:

1. That defendant admits the averments mentions in paragraph 1 and 2 of the
complaint;
2. That defendant specifically denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 3 and
4 of the complaint, the truth of the matter being that the agreed amount of Mahr was only P1,
500.00 but said amount was settled and paid immediately before the wedding ceremony,
therefore, the claim of the unpaid balance of P1, 500.00 is not true, the truth being that the entire
amount of Mahr was already been paid and satisfied;
3. That defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the matters treated in paragraph 5, 6 and 7 of the complaint, and therefore denies
each and every one of them and by way of –

COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant most respectfully states:

1. That he incorporates paragraph 1 of the answer for purposes of references;
2. That the instant complaint is founded, malicious and with put basis both in law
and fact;
3. That as a consequence of the unfounded and malicious complaint, defendant was
forced to engage the services of counsel to defend his right and to whom he is obligated to pay
the sum of p1, 500.00 as attorney’s fee;
4. That as further consequence of the unfounded and malicious complaint, defendant
suffered mental anguish, wounded feelings and social humiliation for which he is entitled to
moral damages in the conservative amount of P5, 000.00.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment

shall be rendered in favor of defendant and plaintiff shall be ordered:
 1) To pay the defendant the sum of P1, 500.00 as reimbursement of attorney’s fee;
2) To pay to the defendant the sum of P5, 000.00 as moral damages; and
3) Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances.

Cotabato City, Phillipines, June 17, 1986.

ZAID MOHAMMAD
Mudda’alai (Defendant)

4. Example of Notice of Pre-Trial

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL AUTONOMOUS GOVERNMENT
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH Shari’a District Court
Cotabato City

RAKMA IBRAHIM SCC Case No. 86-017

Mudda’I (Plaintiff)

-Versus – - For –

ZAID MOHAMMAD COLLECTION OF MAHR

Mudda-aala’(Defendant)
X----------------------------------------X
NOTICE OF PRE-TRIAL

You are hereby notified that the Pre-Trial of the above-entitled case is set on July 10,
1986 at 9:00 o’clock in the morning at the Shari’ah Circuit Court, Cotabato City for the purpose
of an amicable settlement and clarification and definition of issues pursuant to section 6 of the
Ijra-at-al Mahakim al Shari’a.

FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.

Cotabato City, Philippines, June 18, 1986.

_________________________
Clerk of Court
5. Example of pre-trial order

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL AUTONOMOUS GOVERNMENT
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH Shari’a District Court
Cotabato City

RAKMA IBRAHIM SCC Case No. 86-017

Mudda’I (Plaintiff)

-Versus – - For –

ZAID MOHAMMAD COLLECTION OF MAHR

Mudda-aala’(Defendant)
X----------------------------------------X
Pre-Trial Court

When this case was called for Pre-Trial Court hearing this morning, the parties failed to
arrive at an amicable settlement despite the efforts exerted. The court then proceeded with
clarification of issues involved in the controversy and found the following:
1) Whether or not the agreed amount of mahr is P3, 000.00 or P1, 500.00.
WHEREFORE in view of the above, parties are hereby given ten (10) days from receipt
of this order in which to submit to court the statement of their respective witnesses (should) and
other evidences (bayyinah) pertinent to the issue together with the memoranda setting forth the
law and the facts relied upon.
SO ORDERED.
Cotabato City, Philippines, July 10, 1996.

___________________
Presiding Judge

_______________________________________

6. Example of Statement of witnesses (Shuhud)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

IN THE CITY OF COTABATO) SS.
X--------------------------------------X

AFFIDAVIT

I, TALIB ABUBAKAR, of legal age, married, Imam of Mosque, Muslim Filipino, and
residing at Bagua, Cotabato City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance
with law, despose and say:
 1. That I am the Imam of the Bagua Mosque at Bagua, Cotabato City;
2. That being an Imam, practically all marriage settlements in my barrio, I am
invitedto participate in the deliberation;
3. That during the marriage settlement of Rakma Ibrahim and Zaid mohammad, I
was present and one of those actively participated in the deliberation;
4. That during the deliberation, it was agreed among others that the amount of the
Mahr was P3, 000.00 with promise that the balance of P1, 500.00 shall be paid on or before
December 31, 1985:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of July, 1986 at
Cotabato City, Philippines.

________________________
Person Authorized to administer oaths

(Note: similar statement may be executed by another witness or witnesses to complete the
number of witnesses required by law)

7. Example of statement of witness of the advance party.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

IN THE CITY OF COTABATO) SS.
X--------------------------------------X
AFFIDAVIT

I, MUSTAPHA ABEDIN, of legal age, married, businessman, Muslim Filipino and

residing at Lugay-Lugay, Cotabato City, Philippines after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, depose and say:
1. That I was present when the marriage settlement between Rakma Ibrahim and
Zaid Mohammad were made and agreed upon;
2. That during the deliberaton of the marriage settlement I was among the crowd;
that I heard that the agreed amount of the mahr was P1, 500.00;
3. That the amount of P1, 500.00 was actually paid because I saw the money
delivered to Imam Talib Abubakar;
4. That this affidavit is made and executed to establish the fact that the amount of
the mahr agreed upon by the parties is only P1, 500.00 and that the same amount was paid and
satisfied.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of July, 1986 at
Cotabato City, Philippines.

________________________
Person Authorized to administer oaths
 (Note: similar statement may be executed by another witness or witnesses of the adverse
party)

8. Example of Decision

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL AUTONOMOUS GOVERNMENT
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH Shari’a District Court
Cotabato City

RAKMA IBRAHIM SCC Case No. 86-017

Mudda’I (Plaintiff)

-Versus – - For –

ZAID MOHAMMAD COLLECTION OF MAHR

Mudda-aala’(Defendant)
X----------------------------------------X

DECISION

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case of collection of Mahr filed by the Mudda’I against the Mudda’I calaims that the
Mudda’alai has not paid the balance of P1, 500.00. it was agreed on the marriage settlement that
the amount of Mahrwas P3, 000.00 and Mudda’aalai had only paid P1, 500.00 leaving a balance
of P1, 500.00 which he promised to pay on or before December 31, 1985. Defendant fail and
refuse to pay the balance despite of repeated demands.
Mudda’aalai contends that the agreed amount of Mahr was P1, 500.00 only, but sid
amount was already paid and settled before the marriage ceremony.
B. EVIDENCE:
(1) Evidence of the Muddda’I (Plaintiff);
The evidence of the Mudda’I consisted of the testimonies of Talib Abubakar and Tahir
Abdula.
Talib Abubakar testified as follows: that he is the imam of the mosque in Bagua,
Cotabato City; that he was one of those who participated actively in marriage settlements of
Rakma Ibrahim and Zaid Mohammad; that the agreed Mahr was P3, 000.00 which was witnessed
by several persons among them was Tahir Abdula; that Mudda’aalai was able to pay P1, 500.00
only and the balance of P1, 500.00 was to be paid on or before December 31, 1985.
(2) Evidence of Mudda’alai (Defendant)
The evidence of Mudda’alai consisted of the testimonies of Mustapha Abedin and
Tawakal Abo.
Witness Mustapha Abedin testified that he was among the crowd present when the
Marriage settlement of Rakma Ibrahim was being deliberated; that he heard the agreed Mahr was
in the amount of P1, 500.00; that the P1, 500.00 was actually paid; that he saw the money
actually counted and delivered to a person whom when asked does not know his name.
Witness Tawakal Abo testified that he was also present when marriage settlement of
Rakma Ibrahim and Zaid Mohammad was being deliberated; that he was there because he
wanted to witness the marriage settlement of his friend Zaid Mohammad, they being office mates
that he heard that the agreed Mahr was in the sum of P1, 500.00 and that was he saw the money
being counted in the sum of P1, 500.00 and delivered to a person whom he prompted to be on the
side of the woman.
C. FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
This court, after a judicious evaluation of the evidence adduced by the contending parties
is inclined to give more weight and credence to the witnesses of the Mudda’i. witness talib
Abubakar carried much weight, he being an Imam and respected member of the community, and
moreover, he directly participated in the deliberation of the marriage settlement. Likewise the
declaration of witness Tahir Abdula carried much weight. He is the elder of the community and
was invited to sit down in the talk. In such a case, he knew practically all had transpired in the
deliberation. The court has also taken into consideration their demeanors while testifying.

On the other hand, this court can accept the testimonies of witnesses of the Mudda’alai.
These two witnesses were with the general crowd and such being the case, there is the possibility
that they could not have observed every detail in the deliberation. The testimony of a person who
is nearer to the scene carries much weight than that the testimony of one who is further.
Otherwise stated, the testimony of the actor as more credible than the observer.
D. FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
This court, after a judicious evaluation of the evidence adduced by the contending parties
is inclined to give more weight and credence to the witnesses of the Mudda’I, Witness talib
Abubakar carried much weight, he being an Imam and respected member of the community, and
moreover, he directly participated in the deliberation of the marriage settlement. Likewise the
declaration of witness Tahir Abdula carried much weight. He is the elder of the community and
was invited to sit down in the talk. In such a case, he knew practically all had transpired in the
deliberation. The court has also taken into consideration their demeanors while testifying.

On the other hand, this court can accept the testimonies of witnesses of the Mudda’alai.
These two witnesses were with the general crowd and such being the case, there is the possibility
that they could not have observed every detail in the deliberation. The testimony of a person who
is nearer to the scene carries much weight than that the testimony of one who is further.
Otherwise stated, the testimony of the actor as more credible than the observer.

This court therefore, holds that the Mudda’aalai is liable to pay to the Mudda’I the sum of
P1,500.00 which represents the amount of balance of the Mahr and P1, 000.00 as the
reimbursement of the attorney’s fee, but dismisses the claim of P3, 000.00 as moral damages,
being that the same is not meritorious under the circumstances.
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
Mudda’I (Plaintiff) and Mudda’alai (Defendant) is hereby ordered:
(1) To pay the Mudda’I (plaintiff) the sum of P1, 500.00 representing the amount of
the unpaid Mahr;
(2) to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P1, 000.00 as reimbursement of attorney’s fee;
and
(3) to pay the cost of this litigation.

SO ORDERD.

Cotabato City, Philippines, ugust 2, 1986.

_
_____________
Presiding Judge

___________________________

If aggrieved party is not satisfied with the decision, he may file a motion for
reconsideration within the period to appeal.

9. Example of a Motion for Reconsideration.

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL AUTONOMOUS GOVERNMENT
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH Shari’a District Court
Cotabato City

RAKMA IBRAHIM SCC Case No. 86-017

Mudda’I (Plaintiff)

Versus – - For –

ZAID MOHAMMAD COLLECTION OF MAHR

Mudda-aala’(Defendant)
X----------------------------------------X

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Comes now, Mudda’ aalai (Defendant) in the above-entitled case, and before this
Honorble court, most respectfully states:
1. That Defendant is praying before this Honorable court to reconsider its decision
dated August 2, 1986on the following grounds:
 a) Tht the Honorable court failed to appreciate the testimonies of Mustapha Abedin
and Twakal Abo because had the court appreciated their testimonies judgment may be rendered
in favor of defendant;
b) That the demeanor of the witnesses in the court shows that they were telling the
truth unlike the witnesses of the plaintiff who were trembling in the witness stand.

If motion for Reconsideration is denied the court will issue on order or resolution.

10. Example of an order/resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL AUTONOMOUS GOVERNMENT
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH Shari’a District Court
Cotabato City

RAKMA IBRAHIM SCC Case No. 86-017

Mudda’I (Plaintiff)

-Versus – - For –

ZAID MOHAMMAD COLLECTION OF MAHR

Mudda-aala’(Defendant)
X----------------------------------------X

ORDER

The Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the Mudda’aalai (Defendant) praying that
this court will reconsider its decision under date of August 2, 1986, and accordingly, this court
set the hearing of the opportunity to argue their case.
After the Argument, this court finds that the motion for reconsideration is not
well-founded and meritorious, hence, the instant motion is hereby denied and the decision of this
court still atands.

SO ORDERED.

Cotabato City, Philippines, August 8, 1986.

______________________
Presiding Judge

________________________

SECTION 9. Appeal – an appeal shall be made by filing a notice of appeal addressed to

the court and by paying the docket fee within fifteen days from receipt of the judgment.
11. Example of Notice of Appeal

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL AUTONOMOUS GOVERNMENT
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH Shari’a District Court
Cotabato City

NOTICE OF APPEAL

G R E E T I N G S:

Please take notice that Mudda-aalai (Defendant) is appealing the decision of this court
dated August 2, 1986 to the Shari’a District Court.
It is further requested that upon perfection of this appeal the clerk of court shall transmit
the original record to the appropriate appellate court.

Cotabato City, Philippines, August 10, 1986.

ZAID MOHAMMAD
(Defendant-Appellant)

12. Example for Petition for Divorce.

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL AUTONOMOUS GOVERNMENT
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH Shari’a District Court
Cotabato City

RAKMA IBRAHIM SCC Case No. 86-017

Petitioner

-Versus – - For –

ZAID MOHAMMAD DIVORCE BY FASKH

Respondent
X----------------------------------------X

PETITION

COMES NOW, the petitioner, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states:
1. That the petitioner and the respondent are both of legal age, Muslim Filipinos,
wife and husband respectively and residing at Bagua, Cotabato City, Philippines;
 2. That petitioner and respondent are wife and husband, having been married in
accordance with Muslim Law;
3. That petitioner prays before this Honorable Court that a decree of Divorce by
Faskh be issued, the grounds thereof being as follows;
a) That respondent Zaid Mohammad, on several occasions, comes home late at night
drunk and assaults me physically resulting to physical injuries;
b) That respondents associates with persons of ill-refute causing bad image to the
petitioner and the family.
4. That petitioner had several times reported this matter to our family elders but of
no avail.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed before this Honorable
Court that a decree of divorce by faskh be issued.
Cotabato City, Philippines, February 14, 1987.

RAKMA IBRAHIM
Petitioner

VERIFICATION

That I, RAKMA IBRAHIM, of legal age, married, housekeeper, Muslim Filipino and
residing at Bagua, Cotabato City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
depose and say:
That I am the petitioner in the above-entitled petition; that I have caused the preparation
of the same; and they all the contents of the same are true and correct according to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Cotabato City, Philippines, February 14, 1987.

RAKMA IBRAHIM
Petitioner

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of February, 1987 at Cotabato
City, Philippines.

_________________________________
(Person authorizes to administer oaths)
13. Example of Petition for support.

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL AUTONOMOUS GOVERNMENT
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT
FIFTH Shari’a District Court
Cotabato City

ABC SCC Case No. 86-017

Petitioner

-Versus –
- For –
DEF,
Respondent SUPPORT
X----------------------------------------X

PETITION

COMES NOW, the Petitioner, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states:
1. That petitioner is of lgal age, married to the respondent, Muslim Filipino and
residing at Bagua, Cotabato City, and respondent is likewise of legal age, married to petitioner,
Muslim Filipino and presently residing at 1234 Pepin Street, Sampaloc, Manila;
2. That the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband, having been married in
accordance with Muslim Law, that out of the said wedlock two children were born, a son and a
daughter who are still minors;
3. That respondent is working in the bureau of customs with salary of P3, 000.00 a
month; that he failed to send any amount for the last six months inspite of my several letters, and
that according to my information he is going around with women;
4. That petitioner has no means of livelihood in which to support the family while
respondent is employed with a healthy salary.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed in this Honorable

court that judgment be rendered ordering the respondent to give a reasonable amount to the
herein petitioner and the two minor children for their support to be remitted within five (5) days
after the end of every month.
Cotabato City, Philippines, February 14, 1987.

ABC
Petitioner
 VERIFICATION

That I, ABC, of legal age, married, Muslim Filipino and residing at Bagua, Cotabato
City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and say;
That I am the petitioner in the above-entitled petition; that I have caused the preparation
of the same; and all the contents thereof are true and correct according to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Cotabato City, Philippines, February 14, 1987.

ABC
Petitioner

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of February, 1987 at Cotabato
City, Philippines.

_____________________
(Person authorized to administer oath)
 In the matter of an Application for a writ of Habeas Corpus
By NONA SOOJA

Muslim Law – Custody of girl – Marriage of Mother – Right of Grandmother

Under the Muslim Law the right which a mother has to the custody of a minor daughter is
lost on the marriage of a mother to a person not related to the minor within the prohibited
degrees.
In such a case the right to custody devolves to the maternal grandmother of the girl.
Application for a writ of Habeas Corpus by the petitioner, the mother of a girl of 11 ½
years. The petitioner were the grandmother of a girl.
Bandaranaike (with Hanifa), for respondent.
October 13, 1930, Jayewardene, A.J. –
The petitioner is the mother Nona Rahuel, a girl of 11 ½ years. The respondent is the
grandparents of the girl, the first respondent being the petitioner’s mother, and the second
respondent her father. The petitioner was first married to one kamer, and the girl Mona Rahuel
was their daughter. The petitioner divorced her first husband, the father of the child. She next
married to one miskin, who is now dead. She was then married for the third time to one lawana
who is now living with her. The parties are Malays and governed by Muhammadan Law.
According to Muhammadan Law applicable to Ceylon the mother is entitled to custody of a girl
not merely until she attains puberty but will she actually married. (Re-application of Wappu
Marikar and his wife Umani Umma followed by Muhammadu Cassin V. Cassi Lebbe) two
interesting traditions are mentioned in the hedaya, Vol. 1-385:Abubakr, the first Caliph,
addressing omar, who claimed the custody of his child, said, “The spittle of the mother is better
for thy child than honey, O omar” and on a similar occasion, a woman applied to the prophet
saying: O Prophet God, this is my son, the first of my womb, cherished in my bosom and suckled
at my breast, and his father is desirous of taking him away from me into his own care”. To which
the Prophet replied, “Thou hast a right in the child prior to that of my husband so long as thou
does not intermarry with a stranger”. The custody (hizanat) of a boy until he has completed his
seven years and of a girl under the age of puberty belongs to the mother, if alive and not
disqualified, and failing her, to the mother’s mother and other females in due order.
A woman otherwise entitled to the custody of a boy or girl is disqualified however by
being married to a man not related to a minor within the prohibited degrees, so long as the
marriage subsits. (Wilson’s Muhammadan Law, 183, 194).
According to the Minhaj et Talibin, which forms to the basis of the legal literature of the
school of shafei, to which the Ceylon Moors belong, the education of a child can never be
entrusted to the mother, if she has married again (Vendenberg, p. 392, French ed. Translated by
Howard). Baille in his digest of Muhammadan Law observes that when a woman marries, she
loses the right to the custody of her child (Baillie’s Muhammadan Law, Part 11, p. 96).
The right of all woman are made void by marriage with strangers, and when te child has
no mother, and none is entitled and competent to take charge of it, the mother’s mother is
preferred to all other persons (Baillie, Part 1, pp. 431-432).
 The right to Tyabji 236, in the absence or disqualification of mother, the custody of a
child belongs to the mother’s mother, the principle being that the custody of infant belongs as of
right to its mother’s relations. He mentions the marriage of the mother as one of the
disqualification.
Ameer Ali quotes the Radd-ul-Muktar as an extremely valuable and authoritative work
on Muhammadan Law and states that the mother is best entitled to the custody of (hizanat) of
her infant children and that this right belongs to her qua mother, even though she has separated
from her husband, and nothing can take it away from her except her own misconduct . Among
the Hanafi’s, the mother is entitled to the custody of her daughter until she arrives at puberty;
among the shafies custody continues till she is married. Ameer Ali observes the right to hizanat
or custody, according to all schools, is lost by the subsequent marriage of the mother. The author
of Radd-ul-Muktar says the right of hizanat is lost by the mother ( or any other woman) marrying
a ghairmahram of the infant, that is not related to the infant within the prohibited degrees, for a
stranger would not be agreeable to her bringing up the child with affection and care (Ameer Ali’s
Muhammadan Law, vo. 11, pp. 247-254, 4th ed.).