In a writ petition seeking direction to register an FIR under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 for a triple talak pronounced in December 2017, the Karnataka High Court rejected the petition holding that the Act is not retroactive.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.8689/2021(GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN
Ms. AMEERA KHANNUM W/O. SYED SAMEER AHMED, D/O. KALEEMULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 11, HOUSE NO. 404, 4TH FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, 1ST , 2ND MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043.
(BY SRI: RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL., ADVOCATE)
AND
2
BENGALURU-560 030. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: VINOD KUMAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R1 TO R4 TO CONSIDER THE COMPLAINTS FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE A AND B, REGISTER FIR AGAINST R5 AS PER COMPLIANTS AND TAKE COGNIZANCE AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND DIRECTING R2 TO FILE STATUS REPORT OF REGISTERING THE FIR WITHIN REASONABLE TIME AS MAY BE DECIDED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved
by the non registration of an FIR and failure to initiate
3
criminal prosecution against the 5th respondent by the 4th respondent-police on the complaint dated 17.04.2021.
4
petitioner set the criminal law into motion by filing a case under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is pending before the VI Additional Chief Magistrate and is registered as C.C. No.23181/2017 and that she has also preferred a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2007 registered as Crl.Misc. No.141/2018 before the VI MMTC, Bengaluru.
ignored and has refused to pay the maintenance passed by the Courts below. That the petitioner had also filed a suit seeking for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and the same is registered as O.S. No.212/2018. That in the interregnum, she has reliably learnt that the 5th respondent entered into re-marriage on 28.02.2021 at Citrus Hotel, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru and the second marriage is without her consent.
se violative of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, more
5
particularly, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act. In that view of the matter, it is prayed that the instant writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to register a criminal case and prosecute the 5th respondent.
Advocate files into Court a memo dated 21.06.2021 enclosing therewith, a copy of the enactment namely, The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 and a copy of the endorsement dated 02.06.2021 issued by the Police Inspector of the 4th respondent police station wherein, it is stated that the complaint cannot be registered as the alleged occurrence are prior to coming into force of the enactment. That the Act, 2019 came into force on 31.07.2019 and the act of triple talak is dated 10.12.2017 and in that view of the matter, it is not permissible for the authorities to register and prosecute the 5th respondent under the provisions of the Act of 2019. The endorsement issued by the 4th respondent, in the opinion of this Court is correct and proper. The act does not in any manner make it
6
applicable with a retrospective effect and more so, in view of the settled law that the penal provisions cannot be made applicable with a retrospective effect, the endorsement stands the test of law and calls for no interference.
In that view of the matter, writ petition stands rejected. No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
Chs
3 issues framed by the court
Whether complaints regarding triple talak pronounced in 2017 can be registered under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 enacted in 1921.
Whether the High Court can adjudicate on the validity of triple talak under personal laws in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227.
Whether Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 have retrospective effect to cover acts prior to its commencement.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ms. Ameera Khannum
The State of Karnataka
Commissioner of Police Infantry Road
Assistant Commissioner of Police Madivala
Station House Officer Adugodi P.S.
Mr. Syed Sameer Ahmed
G. Narendar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
