Allowed

Jahfer Sadiq E.A. v. Marwa

Kerala HC15 Jul 2022Crl.MC/2104/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A prosecution over a single talaq declaration was challenged as outside the statutory prohibition on instant and irrevocable divorce. The court held the declaration to be permitted talaq-e-sunnat, not prohibited talaq-e-biddat, and allowed the petition, quashing all further proceedings in the FIR.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in FIR No.0046/2020 registered at Perumbavoor Police Station quashed.

Jahfer Sadiq E.A. Vs Marwa — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

[1]

¶2

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 2104 OF 2020

¶8

(AGAINST THE FIR NO.0046/2020 REGISTERED AT PERUMBAVOOR POLICE
STATION)

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶10

JAHFER SADIQ E.A.AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O. ABDUL JALEEL, ETHIYIL HOUSE,
NADAKKAVU, MALAYIDAMTHURUTH P.O. 683 561,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
ABOOBACKER E.M., AGED 44,
S/O. MUSTAFA, ETHIYIL HOUSE,
NADAKKAVU, MALAYIDAMTURUTHU P.O. ERNAKULAM, 683 561.
BY ADVS.
P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
KUM.SREEJI K.B.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

1 MARWA,D/O. MOIDEEN PILLA,
THACHARUKUDY HOUSE, MAULOODPURA, MUDICKAL P.O.
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, 683 547.

¶13

2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 31.
BY ADV SRI.V.K.SIDHIK KOYAMMED

¶14

 SRI SANAL P RAJ-PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.06.2022, THE COURT ON 15.07.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

[2]

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

“C.R.”

O R D E R

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2022

¶21

Talaq-e- ahsan and talaq-e- hasan - two approved forms of divorce in

¶22

Muslim Personal Law of India vis-à-vis talaq-e-bidat – another form declared

¶23

as unconstitutional by the Apex Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India¹ are examined on the touchstone of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on

¶24

Marriage) Act, 2019 in this Crl. M.C filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶25

Prelude

¶26

The Muslim Personal Law administered in India recognises out-

¶27

of-court divorce at the instance of both wife and husband, as well as divorce

¶28

through court at the instance of the wife. The former is regulated by uncodified Muslim Personal Law, as is clear from the terms used in Section 2

¶29

of the Muslim Personal Law ( Shariat ) Application Act, 1937. Embodying the Islamic claw of faskh , the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage, Act, 1939 provides

¶30

divorce through court at the instance of the wife on fault-based grounds.

1 2017 KHC 6574

[3]

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

Apart from the above modes of divorce, the Muslim Personal Law also recognises divorce by mutual consent without the intervention of the court.

¶35

Extra-judicial divorce at the instance of the husband, in Muslim

¶36

law, takes the form of talaq and extra-judicial divorce at the instance of the

¶37

wife takes the form of either talaq -e- tafwiz or khula . A Muslim wife can at

¶38

the time of her marriage reserve in marriage deed a right for herself to dissolve the marital tie in specified circumstances. This is called tafwiz-e-talaq (delegated divorce). A Muslim wife may obtain a release from the marital contract by giving up her settled dower; such a divorce is consequently called

¶39

khula . When a divorce is effected by mutual consent, it is called mubara’at

¶40

which operates as a release and discharge on both sides.

¶41

Though the extra-judicial power given to the husband to dissolve

¶42

the marriage by the pronouncement of talaq could only be resorted to as a

¶43

last resort after pre-divorce conciliation, the practice of triple talaq or talaq-

¶44

e- bidat - severing the nuptial tie forthwith on its pronouncement - was

¶45

prevalent among the majority of the Muslim population in the country. The Apex Court, in the case of Shayara Bano² had finally put an end to the

¶46

practice declaring it to be against the ethos of the Constitution. It paved the

2 supra

[4]

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

way for the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on

¶51

Marriage) Act, 2019 criminalising the pronouncement of triple talaq in all its

¶52

forms including, electronic forms and prescribes punishment for the same.

¶53

Facts

¶54

The petitioner married the 1^st respondent on 20/7/2015 as per

¶55

Islamic rites. A girl child was born in the wedlock. Their marital bliss did not last long. Marital disputes arose and the relationship strained which resulted in the institution of various legal proceedings. On 18/4/2019, the petitioner pronounced talaq by sending the talaqnama to the 1^st respondent by a registered post. Annexure A3 is the talaqnama . On 10/1/2020, the 1^st respondent preferred a complaint to the Circle Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor alleging that the talaq pronounced by the petitioner vide Annexure A3 talaqnama is triple talaq prohibited by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Annexure A2 is the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, the Perumbavoor police registered a crime against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Annexure A1 is the FIR. The petitioner has approached this court to quash Annexure A1 FIR invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the talaq pronounced by him is not a talaq-

¶56

[5]

¶57

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶58

e-bidat having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce, but talaq-

¶59

e-sunnat recognised under the Muslim Personal Law and as such, the offences

¶60

under Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on

¶61

Marriage) Act, 2019 are not attracted.

¶62

Contentions

¶63

I have heard Sri.P.K.Ibrahim, the learned counsel for the

¶64

petitioner and Sri. Sanal P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though

¶65

notice has been served to the 1^st respondent, there is no appearance.

¶66

The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.P.K.Ibrahim submitted

¶67

that what is prohibited under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 is talaq-e-bidat pronounced three times in a single sentence or separate sentence having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce and Annexure A3 talaq by no means could be interpreted as one of talaq-e-bidat . On the other hand, the talaq pronounced by the petitioner is talaq-e-sunnat which would come into effect only if the parties failed to reunite in marital tie within the period of iddat . The counsel further

¶68

submitted that the talaq pronounced by the petitioner was for reasonable cause after the pre-divorce conference as evidenced by Annexure A3. This

¶69

form of divorce is perfectly valid under the Muslim Personal Law, submitted

¶70

[6]

¶71

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶72

the counsel. Per contra, the learned Prosecutor submitted that a reading of Annexure A3 would show that it dissolves the marriage instantaneously and as such, offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 are clearly attracted. When a

¶73

prima facie case is made out, the jurisdiction vested with this court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings cannot be invoked, submitted the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶74

Talaq : Nature and Concept

¶75

A Muslim husband may, under all schools of Muslim law, effect

¶76

an out-of-court divorce by his own declaration. This is called talaq . The word

¶77

talaq is an Arabic word which means “undoing of or a release from knot”. It is used by Muslim jurists to denote the release of women from the marriage tie. According to Hedaya³ , talaq means a repudiation of wife and husband in

¶78

the exercise of the absolute power which the law has conferred on him.

¶79

The doctrine of talaq , in fact, was not introduced by Islam, as it is widely believed. It was a practice that Islam preferred and refined in its law. Under the ancient Hebraic Law, a husband could divorce his wife for any

¶80

cause which made her disagreeable to him, and there were few or no checks

¶81

3 Ali ibn Abi Bakr Marghinani, Hedaya, trans. Charles Hamilton, Wm H Allens & Co., London, 1870 at 72.

¶82

[7]

¶83

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶84

to his arbitrary and capricious use of this power. Among the pre-Islamic

¶85

Arabs, the powers of divorce possessed by the husband were unlimited. They

¶86

could divorce their wives at any time, for any reason or without any reason. They could also revoke their divorce, and divorce again as many times as they preferred. The pre-Islamic institution of divorce acquired no formula to make

¶87

its operation valid, and as there was no check on the irresponsible power of the husband, a simple intimation from him to the effect that tie was dissolved

¶88

was considered sufficient⁴ . At the time of the Prophet’s appearance, the repudiation by the husband for no reason was common among them as among the Bagan Arabs. Those social and moral ills and injustice engaged the attention of the Prophet. It was impossible, however, under the existing condition of society to abolish the custom entirely. The Prophet had to mould

¶89

the mind of an uncultured and semi-barbarous community to higher development. Accordingly, he allowed the exercise of the power of divorce to the husband under certain conditions and gave to the woman the right of

¶90

obtaining the separation on reasonable grounds⁵ .

¶91

4 Syed Ameer Ali, Mohammedan Law, Hind Publishing House, Allahabad, 5th edn., 2005 at 1551 - 54

¶92

5 Syed Khalid Rashid, Muslim Law, Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 1996 at 97-8.

¶93

[8]

¶94

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶95

The Muslim law does not allow a Muslim husband unlimited

¶96

discretion to divorce his wife instantly as he pleases as widely believed. On

¶97

the contrary, Muslim law allows talaq subject to several conditions that are

¶98

of dissuasive nature. A man should pronounce a talaq only if he has really made up his mind to put an end to the marriage. Quran , the foremost source of Muslim law, prescribes certain steps before the pronouncement of the first

¶99

talaq . The Quran says:

¶100

“As to those women for whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse them cohabitation and (last), turn away from them; but if they behave with you, then do not seek a device with them”⁶ .

¶101

As a first step, when there is marital discord, the Quran advises the husband

¶102

to reason with his wife through discussion. If differences persist, then, the

¶103

parties are asked to sexually distance themselves ( wahjuru hunna ) from each other in the hope that temporary physical separation may encourage them

¶104

to unite. If even this fails, the husband is instructed, as a third step, to once again explain ( wazirabu hunna ) to his wife the seriousness of the situation and try to bring about a reconciliation. If the dispute still remains unresolved,

¶105

as the next step, the Quran requires the matter to be placed before two

6 Quran IV: 34

[9]

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

arbiters, one from the family of each spouse, for resolution. The Quran in this

¶110

regard says:

¶111

“If you fear a breach between them again, appoint(two) arbiters one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for these Allah will cause their reconciliation, for Allah has full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things”⁷ .

¶112

After the failure of the attempts at reconciliation mentioned

¶113

above that the Quran allows the talaq to be pronounced. However, the man

¶114

is not allowed to pronounce talaq while the wife is in her menstrual period

¶115

since this is a period of mutual distance not fit enough to take a decision on separation. A man thinking of talaq must wait till the wife is in tuhr – Menstruation free state. Quran insists on the presence of two just witnesses to witness the pronouncement of talaq . The talaq declaration is primarily and

¶116

ordinarily an inchoate action which does not break the marriage forthwith. After the pronouncement of talaq , the woman will have to pass her turn of waiting period called iddat to afford the man a fair opportunity to reconsider

¶117

the decision and nullify his declaration, formally or by conduct. Iddat means,

¶118

in the case of a pregnant wife, the period till she is free from confinement

¶119

and, in respect of all other wives, approximately three months during which

7 Quran IV: 35

[10]

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

at least two menses-free periods for the wife would have intervened.

¶124

Withdrawal of a talaq declaration is allowed to the man during the iddat period even if the wife does not agree to it⁸ . If the parties are unable to unite

¶125

during the period of iddat and the husband does not withdraw his talaq declaration, the marital bond stands severed on the expiry of the period of

¶126

iddat and the talaq becomes irrevocable.

¶127

Classification of talaq

¶128

Various authorities including Faizee and Ameer Ali classify talaq

¶129

into two forms (1) talaq-e-sunnat and (2) talaq-e-bidat . Talaq-e-sunnat is

¶130

further classified into “ ahsan ” and “ hasan ” forms. Tahir Mahamood opines that these classifications are not “modes” or “forms” of talaq , those expressions only refer to the conduct of the man in pronouncing talaq i.e.,

¶131

whether he has or has not followed the prescribed rules for it which aim at dissuading and keeping him away from actually breaking the marriage⁹ .

¶132

As noted already, the Muslim law prescribes a simple procedure

¶133

for talaq keeping all chances of reconciliation and reconsideration open. A

¶134

talaq strictly following this procedure is talaq-e-sunnat - a proper talaq . A

¶135

8 Tahir Mahmood, The Muslim Law of India, Lexis Nexis, New Delhi, 3rd edn., 2002 at 104

¶136

9 supra

¶137

[11]

¶138

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶139

talaq in violation of the prescribed procedure is talaq-e-bidat - an improper

¶140

talaq . Talaq-e-sunnat is further classified into two based on degrees of virtue

¶141

in respect of the man’s conduct – talaq-e-ahsan and talaq-e- hasan.

¶142

In talaq-e-ahsan, the husband repudiates his wife by a single

¶143

pronouncement in a period of tuhr during which he has not had intercourse with her and then leaves her to the observances of iddat . The divorce remains revocable during iddat . If the couple resumes cohabitation or intimacy within

¶144

the period of iddat , the pronouncement of divorce is treated as having been revoked. Therefore, talaq-e-ahsan is revocable. Conversely, if there is no resumption of cohabitation or intimacy during the period of iddat , then the divorce becomes final and irrevocable, after the expiry of the iddat period. In case of marriage not yet consummated, ahsan talaq may be pronounced during menstruation also. Where the wife and husband are living separate from each other or where the wife is beyond the age of menstruation (old age), the condition of tuhr is not applicable. Talak-e-ahsan is based on the

¶145

following verse of Quran :

¶146

"And the divorced woman should keep themselves in waiting for three courses."¹⁰

10 II.228

[12]

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

Hedya brands talaq-e-ahsan as the most laudable divorce.

¶151

According to Hedya, this method of divorce is the most approved because of

¶152

the compassion of the Prophet and secondly, it remains within the power of

¶153

the husband to revoke the divorce during iddat¹¹ .

¶154

Talaq-e-hasan is also an approved form of divorce, which consists

¶155

of three pronouncements made during three tuhrs with no intercourse taking

¶156

place during any of these intervals. After the first talaq , if there is resumption

¶157

of cohabitation within a period of one month, the pronouncement of divorce

¶158

is treated as revoked. The same procedure is mandated to be followed, after

¶159

the expiry of the first month (during which marital ties have not been resumed). After the second pronouncement of talaq , if there is resumption of cohabitation within a period of one month, the pronouncement of divorce

¶160

is treated as revoked. Not more than two talaq can be pronounced within the period of iddat. Quran says:

¶161

“Divorce is only permissible twice, after that, the parties should either

¶162

hold together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness”¹² .

¶163

If the parties are unable to unite during the period of iddat , the final

¶164

irrevocable talaq can be pronounced, but only after the period of iddat . When

¶165

11 Ali ibn Abi Bakr Marghinani, Hedaya, trans. Charles Hamilton, Wm H Allens & Co., London, 1870 at 72

¶166

12 II: 229

¶167

[13]

¶168

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶169

the final talaq is pronounced, it becomes irrevocable and the marriage comes

¶170

to an end. In this regard Quran says:

¶171

“So, if he (the husband) divorces her (third time) she shall not be lawful to him afterwards until she marries another person”¹³ .

¶172

The hasan form is one in which the Prophet tried to put an end

¶173

to a barbarous pre-Islamic practice. The practice was to divorce a wife and takes her back several times in order to ill-treat her. The prophet, by the rule of the irrevocability of the third pronouncement, indicated clearly that such

¶174

a practice would not be continued indefinitely. Thus, if a husband really wished to take the wife back, he should do so; if not, the third pronouncement, after two reconciliations, would operate as a final bar. These rules of law follow the spirit of the Quranic injunction.

¶175

“Then when they have reached their term, take them back in kindness or part from them in kindness”¹⁴ .

¶176

The distinction between talaq- e-ahsan and talaq-e-hasan is that,

¶177

in the former, there is a single pronouncement of talaq followed by abstinence during the period of iddat , whereas, in the latter, there are three

¶178

pronouncements of talaq , interspersed with abstinence. In both these forms,

¶179

13 II: 230

¶180

14 II: 231

¶181

[14]

¶182

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶183

there is a chance for the party to be reconciled by the intervention of friends or otherwise. They are, therefore “approved” forms and are recognized by

¶184

Muslim law. The Division Bench of this court recently in Sajani A v. Dr Kalam

¶185

Pasha and Another¹⁵ held that talaq-e-ahsan and talaq-e-hasan are the valid forms of talaq recognised in Muslim Law.

¶186

There is yet another mode. When the husband pronounces three

¶187

formulas at one time, whether the wife is in a state of tuhr or not, the separation takes place instantaneously. This is called talaq-e-bidat , more popularly known as triple talaq in India - e.g., if a man declares talaq using the expression in one sentence - "I divorce thee thrice ," - or in separate

¶188

sentences e.g., "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee". The triple talaq in one utterance resulting in divorce once and for all proceeds from the own

¶189

will of the husband without there being any attempt to reconcile marital discord during the prescribed period in the Quran . It is totally antithetical to the spirit of the Quran . Quran nowhere approves of triple talaq in one utterance. In fact, it was a pre-Islamic practice which was firmly rejected by the Prophet. It was not at all allowed during the Prophet’s time and also

¶190

during the time of the first caliph. It was allowed only during the latter part

15 2021 (5) KHC 582

[15]

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

of the second caliph Hazrath Umar. The noted Egyptian Scholar, Muhammed

¶195

Husain Haykal, maintained that this system was resorted to meet the extraordinary situation which arose when many women from Syria, Egypt, etc. were brought to Madina after the wars of conquest. They were fair complexioned and beautiful. The Arabs were tempted to marry them. But

¶196

these women were not used to living with co-wives and often made a condition that the men divorce their wives thrice so that they could not be taken back. Little did they know that according to Quran and Sunnat , three divorces were treated only as one. The Arabs would pronounce three divorces to satisfy these Syrians and other women, but later took their former wives

¶197

back, giving rise to innumerable disputes. To meet such a situation, Hazrath Umer thought it fit to enforce triple divorce in one sitting as an irrevocable divorce so that those women could not be cheated. It would thus be seen that

¶198

the second Caliph took that extraordinary step to meet an extraordinary situation¹⁶ .

¶199

Quran says “If your women are obedient to you, you must not

¶200

seek separation from them”¹⁷ . In another Surah, the Quran prescribes: “Live

¶201

16 Asghar Ali Engineer, ‘Practice of Talaq Among Muslims and the Fatwa’, Mainstream, 14th August 1993, at 17 17 IV;34

¶202

[16]

¶203

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶204

with them in a good manner. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a

¶205

thing and Allah has placed for you much good therein”¹⁸ . The Prophet also

¶206

discouraged and disapproved of talaq except in extremely intolerable circumstances. This has been done in two ways namely condemning divorce and condemning forbearance and continuance of marital relationship in the

¶207

case of disagreement. The Prophet is reported to have said: “The curse of God

¶208

rests on whom who repudiates his wife capriciously”¹⁹ . The Prophet warned

¶209

his people: “Marry, do not divorce for God does not like men and women who relish variety in sex matters”²⁰ . The prophet is reported to have said: “Divorce shakes the throne of God”²¹ . On another occasion, he said: “Let not the faithful man hate the faithful woman, if he dislikes some of her habits, he may

¶210

like others”²² . In an authentic hadith (saying of the Prophet), it is stated that

¶211

of the lawful acts, the most detestable to Allah is divorce²³ . Thus, both Quran

¶212

and Prophet prohibit triple talaq.

¶213

Shamim Ara to Shayara Bano

¶214

18 Surah An-Nisah 19

¶215

19 Comp.D’Ohson, Vol.III, p. 79, as quoted in Mohammedan Law, Vol. II, by Syed Ameer Ali (Himalaya Books, New Delhi, 5th edn., 1985 at 473)

¶216

20 Ali Al-Muttaqee, Kanzal Ummal, Deccan, Hyderbad, 1313 AH at 159

¶217

21 Ahmed A Galwash, The Religion of Islam, Cairo, 1945 at 117

¶218

22 Walee-al-Din-al khaaib Mishakaat-al-Masabih, Delhi, 1350 AH, at 280

¶219

23 Hadith No. 217, Abdu Dawud, http: //www.hadithcollection.com

¶220

[17]

¶221

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶222

21. The Apex Court in Shamim Ara v. State of UP²⁴ spelt out the

¶223

requirements of a valid talaq as (i) that the talaq must be for a reasonable cause; and (ii) that it must be preceded by attempts at reconciliation between

¶224

the husband and the wife by two arbiters - one chosen by the wife from her

¶225

family and the other by the husband from his family. If their attempts fail,

¶226

talaq can be effected. Even though Quranic principles and Hadith literature quoted above as well as the law declared by the Apex Court in Shamim Ara²⁵

¶227

stipulate that there must be reasonable cause for a valid talaq , neither the

¶228

Quranic injunctions nor the Sunnahs or Hhadis enumerate causes for divorce that are reasonable or the causes that are unreasonable. There is no

¶229

obligation under Muslim law to give reasons or satisfy anyone else for such reasons. This stipulation of Muslim law is not modified by any legislative intervention. In Shamim Ara²⁶ also, there is no guideline as to what will be a reasonable cause and what will not be a reasonable cause. The question of how one of the conditions precedent for a valid talaq , that there must be

¶230

reasonable cause, is to be understood In the total absence of such guidelines

¶231

or stipulations came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this

¶232

24 AIR 2002 SC 3551

¶233

25 supra

¶234

26 supra

¶235

[18]

¶236

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶237

Court in Kunhimohammed v. Ayishakutty²⁷ . It was held that in the total

¶238

absence of any such guidelines, the reasonableness of the substantive cause

¶239

for divorce is not justifiable before a court. It was declared in the said decision that until the legislature intervenes, and until it chooses to prescribe the reasonable grounds for divorce, the procedural reasonableness i.e., if the attempt for reconciliation by the two arbiters in accordance with Verse 35 of Surah IV has taken place and they have not succeeded in bringing about reconciliation, it can be held that there is reasonable cause for pronouncement of talaq and the specific reason for divorce need not be established before the court. This decision was followed by the Karnataka High Court²⁸ , Bombay High Court²⁹ and Andhra Pradesh High Court³⁰ wherein it was held that the talaq must be for a reasonable cause and preceded by attempts for reconciliation, one by wife’s family and the other from husband’s family. The Madras High Court also took the same view in Shahul

¶240

Hameed v. Salima³¹ . The Division Bench of this Court in Ummer Farooque v.

¶241

Naseema³² held that, to be a valid talaq, it should be for a reasonable cause

¶242

27 2010 (2) KHC 63

¶243

28 Mohammed Ibrahim v. Mehrunisa Begum 2004 (2) KLT SN 71 (C.No.84) 29 Shameem Beig v. Najmunnisa Begum CDJ 2006 BHC 1216

¶244

30 Zamrud Begum v. KMD Haneef 2003 (3) ALD 220

¶245

2003 (2) KLT SN 121 (C.No.155)

¶246

32 2005 (4) KLT 565

¶247

[19]

¶248

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶249

and be preceded by the attempt of reconciliation between the husband and

¶250

wife by two arbiters. Another Division Bench of this Court in Saidali v.

¶251

Saleena³³ held that the arbitrary unilateral power to inflict instant divorce

¶252

does not accord with Islamic injunctions. It was further held that the Holy Quran expressly prohibits a man to seek a pretext for divorcing his wife so

¶253

long as she remains faithful and obedient to him and in the absence of serious

¶254

and permissible grounds, no man can justify a divorce, either in the eye of religion or law.

¶255

A Single Bench of this court in Nazeer @ Oyoor Nazeer v.

¶256

Shemeema³⁴ has held that triple talaq as practised in India is not in accordance with Quranic injunctions. In Sajini³⁵ , it was held that the feature

¶257

of instant irrevocability in triple talaq takes in two independent features –

¶258

instantaneousness and irrevocability – both of which contribute to making the practice legally odious. It was further held that when no attempt is made

¶259

for reconciliation by two arbiters and when there is non-adherence of iddat

¶260

immediately after the pronouncement of talaq , could render the pronouncement invalid. Finally, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in

¶261

33 2008 (4) KLT 885

¶262

34 2017 (2) KHC 18

¶263

35 supra

¶264

[20]

¶265

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶266

Shayara Bano³⁶ declared the observance and practice of instant triple talaq

¶267

void and unconstitutional.

¶268

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019

¶269

Following Shayara Bano³⁷ , the Muslim Women (Protection of

¶270

Rights on Marriage) Act was passed in July 2019. The Act makes all declarations of talaq , including in written or electronic form, to be void and illegal (Section 3). It defines talaq as talaq-e-bidat or any other similar form

¶271

of talaq pronounced by a Muslim man resulting in instant and irrevocable divorce (Section 2C). Talaq-e-bidat refers to the practice under Muslim personal laws where the pronouncement of the word talaq thrice in one

¶272

sitting by a Muslim man to his wife results in an instant and irrevocable divorce. The Act makes a declaration of talaq a cognizable offence, attracting

¶273

up to three years’ imprisonment with a fine (Section 4).

¶274

What was declared illegal and void by the Apex Court in Shayara

¶275

Bano³⁸ and by Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on

¶276

Marriage) Act, 2019 and made as an offence by Section 4 thereof, was the

¶277

pronouncement of talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq resulting

¶278

36 supra

¶279

37 supra

¶280

38 supra

¶281

[21]

¶282

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶283

in instant and irrevocable divorce. The peculiar features of this form of talaq

¶284

are its instantaneousness and irrevocability. On the other, both ahsan form

¶285

and hasan form, contemplate a period, immediately after the pronouncement of talaq , whether such pronouncement is only once, or thrice over three successive lunar months, when the husband can revoke the talaq . The declaration of talaq-e-sunnat , either by ahsan form or by hasan form, was neither declared void or unconstitutional by the Apex Court in Shayara Bano³⁹ nor made penal by Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Both these forms ( talaq-e-ahsan and talaq-e-hasan ) are still legal and valid under the Muslim Personal Law of India.

¶286

Merit Analysis

¶287

Coming to the merits of the case, the reason for pronouncing talaq has been explained in detail by the petitioner in Annexure A3. It is stated that the petitioner’s marital life with the 1^st respondent has become impossible with no result in the meditations at the instance of jama ath and relatives from both sides. Annexures A4(a), A4(b) and A4(c), the copy of the resolutions of mediations held on 26/8/2016, 12/3/2017 and 9/8/2017,

39 supra

[22]

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

would clearly show that several mediations took place at the instance of the

¶292

jama ath and the relatives as contemplated under Muslim Law prior to the pronouncement of talaq . Annexures A5(a) and A5(b) would show that the parents of the petitioner had to approach the High Court seeking police protection to enter into their house. It is alleged that the 1^st respondent trespassed into the house of the parents of the petitioner and forcibly occupied it on 9/5/2018 when the parents went to the hospital. Annexure A6 is the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent against the petitioner and his parents before the Sub Inspector of Police, Tadiyittaparambil. Annexure A7 is the copy of the FIR registered against the petitioner, his parents and his brother pursuant to Annexure A6. Annexures A8(a) to A9 are various legal proceedings pending between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

¶293

A cumulative reading of Annexures A4 to A10 will indicate the reason for divorcing the 1^st respondent. It would further show that the mediations failed. Thus, all the pre-requisites for a valid talaq were complied with. There is nothing in Annexure A3 to suggest that the talaq pronounced by the petitioner was instantaneous and irrevocable. The petitioner has asserted that it would come into effect only after the period of iddat . True,

¶294

[23]

¶295

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶296

there is only one pronouncement of talaq in Annexure A3. There is a misconception that for a valid talaq , three pronouncements must be made during three tuhrs . As stated already, the extra-judicial divorce at the instance of the husband by the single pronouncement of talaq is perfectly valid if it is preceded by a pre-divorce conference and followed by observance of iddat with no sexual intercourse in between. Such a pronouncement would not attract the penal consequences contemplated under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

¶297

Conclusion and Relief

¶298

For the reasons stated above, I have no hesitation to conclude

¶299

that the talaq pronounced by the petitioner is not talaq-e-biddat prohibited under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, but

¶300

talaq-e-sunnat permitted under the Muslim Personal Law of India.

¶301

It is true that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not ordinarily be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. At the same time, if

¶302

the basic ingredients of the offence alleged are altogether absent, the criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. If the entire averments in Annexure A2 complaint and Annexure A1 FIR are taken at their face value, they do not constitute the ingredients necessary for the offences

¶303

[24]

¶304

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

¶305

punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Hence, no purpose will be served in proceeding with

¶306

the matter further. Accordingly, all further proceedings in FIR No.0046/2020 registered at Perumbavoor Police Station are hereby quashed. Cr. M.C stands

¶307

allowed.

¶308

Sd/-

¶309

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

[25]

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2020

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2104/2020

¶314

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶315

`ANNEXURE A1`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR.NO. 0046/2020` `DATED 10.01.2020 REGISTERED AT PERUMBAVOOR` `POLICE STATION.,`
`ANNEXURE A2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.01.2020` `SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF` `POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR.`
`ANNEXURE A3`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `TALQ` `LETTER` `DATED` `18.04.2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE` `1ST RESPONDENT WHICH WAS ATTACHED ALONG` `WITH ANNEX A2.`
`ANNEXURE A4(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE` `MEDIATIONS HELD ON 26.08.2016.`
`ANNEXURE A4 (B)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE` `MEDIATIONS HELD ON 12.03.2017.`
`ANNEXURE A4 (C)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE` `MEDIATIONS HELD ON 09.08.2017`
`ANNEXURE A5 (A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2018` `IN WPC NO. 16060/2018.`
`ANNEXURE A5 (B)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2018 IN` `I.A. NO. 13718/2018 IN WPC NO. 16060/2018.`
`ANNEXURE A6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.05.2018` `SUBMITTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND HIS` `PARENTS BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE` `SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TADIYITTAPARAMBIL.`
`ANNEXURE A7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FIR. NO. 549/2018 DATED` `03.08.2018.`
`ANNEXURE A8(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BEARING NO. MC` `NO. 49/2018 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST` `CLASS STRATEGIST COURT KAKKANAD DATED` `16.05.2018.`
`ANNEXURE A8 (B)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 16.05.2018` `AND CMP NO. 3005/2018 IN MP. NO. 49/2018.`
`ANNEXURE A9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2018` `DISMISSING THE CMP NO. 3005/2018 IN MC. NO.` `49/2018.`
`ANNEXURE A10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2019 IN` `MC. NO. 49/2018.`

Jahfer Sadiq E.A. v. Marwa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahfer Sadiq E.A. v. Marwa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Jaleel Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian V.T. @ Jose Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Babu, Vs State of Kerala

Gunseela Vs State of Kerala

Haris Vs State of Kerala