Arshad Haroon Attar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rufina Naaz W/o. Arshad Attar, Age : 29 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o. House No.8/40, Azad Nagar, Khadka Road, Near Bohri Kabrastan, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. …. Respondents

¶10

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Nasimoddin R. Shaikh APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. S.A. Gaikwad Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Harshal Prakash Randhir

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

¶12

SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶13

Dated : 07^th July 2025

¶14

PER COURT :-

¶15

The present application has been filed for quashing the

¶16

First Information Report (for short "the F.I.R."), vide C.R. No.0449 of 2023, dated 31.08.2023, registered with Bhusawal Bazarpeth Police

¶17

2

¶18

criappln-473-2024

¶19

Station, Dist. Jalgaon and later on, by way of amendment, quashing the proceedings in R.C.C. No.410 of 2024, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal, for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "Muslim Women Act").

¶20

Learned Advocate for the applicant, after taking us through the entire charge-sheet, including the F.I.R., submits that the informant has accepted a fact that the husband had given three talaq i.e. on 22.06.2023, 25.07.2023 and 23.08.2023, which can be said to be notices under talaq-e-hasan. Though she states that it is against those provisions or rules, yet the said Talaq was not instantaneous and this Court, in Tanveer Ahmed S/o. Sadik Patel and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., decided on 23.04.2025 , has made interpretation of Section 4 of the Muslim Women Act and it was considered. It is then observed that what has been prohibited is talaqe-biddat and not talaq-e-hasan and therefore, the facts of the F.I.R. as well as the contents of the charge-sheet would not make out the offence.

¶21

Per contra, learned APP as well as learned Advocate for respondent No.2 objected the application and submit that since the

¶22

3

¶23

criappln-473-2024

¶24

charge-sheet has been filed, let there be evidence. Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 submits that all the three notices are copy paste and the period of Tuhr has not been mentioned in the same. This Court had referred a decision by the Hon'ble Single Bench of Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in Jahfer Sadiq E.A. Vs. Marwa and Another, [2022 SCC Online Ker 3643] , and in that itself, the procedure has been noted regarding the clarification of talaq and it is a minute details those are required. Talaq has been classified into two forms i.e. talaq-e-sunnat and talaq-e-biddat. Talaq-e-sunnat is further classified into talaq-e-ahsan and talaq-e-hasan. A talaq strictly following the procedure is talaq-e-sunnat, i.e. a proper Talaq. A talaq in violation of prescribed procedure is talaq-e-biddat, i.e. an improper talaq. In talaq-e-ahsan, a husband repudiates his wife by observing in a period of Tuhr, during which he has not had intercourse with her and leaves her to the observing of Iddat. Now, if this procedure adhered to, that means the period of Tuhr is not mentioned, then it will not be a legal.

¶25

Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 further points out that talaq-e-hasan is also a form of divorce, which consists of three pronouncement of talaq made during three Tuhrs with no intercourse taken place with any of these intervals. After the first notice was

¶26

4

¶27

criappln-473-2024

¶28

received by the informant, she had replied and asked the husband to take her for cohabitation. However, the husband is not responded. Therefore, when there is no proper procedure that has been followed,

¶29

it cannot be said that there is a legal divorce. All these facts would then be brought on record at the time of trial and therefore, this is not a fit case where there should be a quashment of the F.I.R. and proceedings.

¶30

We do not want to reproduce the reasons those have been given in Tanveer Ahmed S/o. Sadik Patel (Supra) , wherein every fact is also considered. The only fact here that is required to be considered as to whether the F.I.R., whatever the facts are stated in it, would amount to an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women Act. For this purpose only, i.e. as regards the interpretation that has been made by this Court, in paragraph No.7, following are the observations.

¶31

"Section 4 of the said Act provides for pronouncement of Talaq. Any muslim husband, who pronounces Talaq referred to in Section 3 upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. For this purpose, we will have to consider the definition given in Section 2(c) of word ‘Talaq’. The said Section 2(c) defines word ‘Talaq’ means ‘Talaq-e-biddat’ or any other similar form of Talaq having the effect of instantaneous or irrevocable divorce pronounced by

¶32

5

¶33

criappln-473-2024

¶34

the Muslim husband. Section 3 provides any pronouncement of Talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal. Therefore, for Section 3 also the definition that has been given in Section 2(c) of the said Act will have to be considered. Once again, if we consider Section 2(c) of the said Act, then Talaq means Talaq-e-biddat or any other form of Talaq, which is having instantaneous effect or irrevocable effect of the pronouncement. All other forms of Talaq were not prohibited or barred and, therefore, the Single Bench of Kerala High Court has, therefore, considered Talaq-e-Ahsan and Talaq-eHasan as well as Talaq-e-biddat. Tala-e-biddat in short was the practice of pronouncement of triple Talaq i.e. thrice the words to be uttered, “I divorce you” at one go. Certainly, we are required to consider the three Judge Bench decision in Zohara Khatoon (Supra) which has been taken note of i.e. paragraph No.22 thereof in the Coordinate Bench decision in Shaikh Taslim Shaikh Hakim (Supra) , wherein three distinct modes of bringing a Muslim marriage to dissolution were considered. "

¶35

This Court has considered and interpreted that only instantaneous or irrevocable effect of pronouncement of talaq was intended to be prohibited and therefore, the said provision of Section 4 of the Muslim Women Act or rather the Act itself was enacted. Here, the informant herself states that there were three different notices with the gap of one month, which were given to her. They may be copy paste, but none of them have been challenged by her before any

¶36

6

¶37

criappln-473-2024

¶38

court of law. Mere giving a reply to the same would not suffice. The alleged illegality has to be certified or got certified as illegal through a court of law and not by the party itself. There was no effect of instantaneous severance of marriage in the present case and therefore, we are of the opinion that Section 4 of the Muslim Women Act will not get attracted. Hence, this is a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the following order.

¶39

ORDER

¶40

I) The application stands allowed.

¶41

II) The First Information Report vide C.R. No.0449 of 2023, dated 31.08.2023, registered with Bhusawal Bazarpeth Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon and the proceedings in R.C.C. No.410 of 2024, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal, for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 stands quashed and set-aside as against the present applicant.

¶42

[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶43

asd

Arshad Haroon Attar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arshad Haroon Attar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhimrao Rajdhar Nannaware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Syed Liyaqat Hashmi and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pratibha Pradip Harale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pandurang Laxman Karale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mujib Hamid Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Satish Vitthal Takale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another