Está en la página 1de 4

I. IS TRIPLE TALAQ VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW?

In the present case on 12th April, 2017 Mukhtar pronounced triple talaq to Asma in the presence
of witnesses Mr. Ahmed Kahan and Mr. Na Wazish Hussain through the means of post along
with the divorce deed. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the instant triple talaq
provided in Shariat Law is void-ab-initio due to the following submissions: triple talaq is
unconstitutional as it violative to fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the
Constitution of Pindiana [A], Article 25 does not protect triple talaq as an essential religious
practice [B] and requisite procedure for talaq was not followed [C].
A. TRIPLE TALAQ IS NOT EFFECT WITH ARTICLE 14, 15 & 21.
It is most humbly submitted that the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ permits a male spouse an
unqualified right to divorce a wife, by way of triple talaq without the disclosure or absence of
any reason even could be pronounced in the absence of the wife, and even without her
knowledge. This right clearly denies the female spouse in the matter of pronouncement of
divorce by the husband by adopting the procedure of ‘talaq-e-biddat’. This action vests an
arbitrary right in the husband, and as such, violated the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of
the Constitution of Pindiana as it postulates equality before the law and equal protection of the
laws. Furthermore the Constitution of Pindiana postulates through Article 15, a clear restraint on
discrimination, on the ground of sex. It is submitted, that ‘talaq-e-biddat’ violates the aforesaid
fundamental right, which postulates equality between men and women. This way the rights of the
Muslim Women in a matrimonial alliance, has resulted in severe gender discrimination, which
amounted to violating their human rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus we seek
intervention, for grave injustice practiced against Muslim wives.
Thus it is submitted that this Court being a constitutional court, is obliged to perform its
constitutional responsibility under Article 32 of the Constitution, as a protector, enforcer, and
guardian of citizens’ rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. It is submitted that
this Court ought to strike down, the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’, as it violates the fundamental
rights and constitutional morality contemplated by the provisions of the Constitution. It was
commended, that the instant practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ should be done away with, in the same
manner as the practice of ‘Sati’, ‘Devadasi’ and ‘Polygamy’, which were components of Hindu
religion, and faith.
B. TRIPLE TALAQ IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICE.
It is submitted that every religion is bound by its own believes and tenants and our constitution
had given enough freedom to practice, protect and profess ones religion. Article 25 of our
constitution protects the essential religious practice. Moreover in the present case in hand tripe
talaq is not an essential religious practice because it is no where supported in Muslim law. In
sura LXV, sura IV verses 35 and sura II of the Holy Quran are instructive verses on the issues of
divorce in the Quran, it states that under extremely unavoidable situation talaq is permissible.
But an attempt of reconciliation and if it succeeds then revocation are the Quranic essential steps
before talaq attaints finality but in triple talaq the doors are closed hence triple talaq is against the
basic tenants of Quran and consequently is violates Shariat Law. Thus the practice of triple talaq
cannot be considered integral to the religious denomination in the question and is not a part of
their personal law. According to the teachings of Quran, talaq must be for a reasonable cause and
preceded by attempts of reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters one from
the wife’s family and other from the husbands family if the attempt fails talaq must be effected.
Thus it clearly shows that triple talaq is bad in law on accounts of not following Quranic
principles (Shamim ara1 ). Similary in the case of Sri Jaidduin Ahmed v. Mrs. Anwar
Begum2 and Must Rukia Khatun v. Abdul Khalique Lascar,3 Justice Baharul Islam, later a
judge of supreme court, had passed the verdict stating that if there is no reasonable cause and not
efforts of reconciliation are found then the plea of previous divorce taken in written statement
cannot at be treated as prouncement of judgment. This clearly shows that triple talaq is both
constitutionally as well as religiously invalid and violates fundamental rights of the citizen,
along with it is also violates the very teachings of the Holy Quran. It was therefore prayed, that
triple talaq as was being practiced in Pindiana, be declared unsustainable in law.
C. TRIPLE-TALAQ IS NOT RECOGNIZED UNDER THE HOLY QURAN, UNDER
ANY SOURCE OF SHIA LAW AND THAT THE REQUISITE PROCEDURE FOR
TALAQ UNDER THE QURAN WAS NOT FOLLOWED.
It is most humbly submitted that as per Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
Application Act, 19374, Muslim personal law will be applicable to the instant dispute. It is
further submitted that a valid marriage has been solemnized between a Sunni male and a Shia

1
2002 7 SCC 518 paras 14 & 17
2
1981 1 GLR 358
3
1981 1 GLR 375
4
MULLA, Principles of Mahomedan Law (Lexis Nexis-Butterworths 19 th edn, 15 th reprint, New Delhi, 2007),
Section 2 at p. 1.
female.5 In Aziz Bano v. Muhammad the court cited with approval Ameer Ali’s commentary on
the Muhammadan Law which said that Shias and Sunnis may intermarry without any change of
sect or communion.6 Muslim law rests on the four-fold pillars of the fiqh, namely 7: the Quran
(kitab), the Sunna (hadith)8 , the Ijma9 and the Qiyas10. If the solution of a problem is given in
the Quran then it is the final ruling of sharia. If there is no clear exposition in the Quran, we look
at the traditions of the Prophet (hadith) and if the problem has no solution in either of the two
then only is resort taken to Ijma.11 It is submitted that there is no Quranic basis to establish that
three divorces on a single occasion should amount to an irrevocable divorce; in fact the Prophet
deplores divorce12 and described marriage13 as his Sunnat. It is beseeched that as per the Quran,
there must be efforts towards reconciliation between the divorce.14 This view has been upheld by
the court in Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. and Anr 15 that (i) a reason for the divorce must be
given and (ii) there must be an attempt to reconcile. This case has further been upheld by the
many High Courts16 including the Kerala HC in Kunimohammed v. Ayishakutty.17 The court
held that “To us, it appears that this declaration of law rhymes well with modern notions of
marriage and the true Islamic concepts of marriage and divorce… That declaration of law is
consistent with modern notions of marriage and rhymes better with the human right to life
recognized under Art.21. It rhymes well with the concepts of equality under Art.14 of the
Constitution. Any contra interpretation appears to us to be not valid, just or right; but arbitrary,
unjust fanciful and oppressive...”

5
Ibid., Section 258 at p. 226
6
(1925) 47 All. 823; 89 I.C. 690; (’25) A.A. 720
7
Supra note 1, Section 33 at p. 22.
8
Meaning the percepts, actions and sayings of the Prophet Mahomed, not written down during his lifetime, but
preserved by tradition and handed down by generations.
9
Meaning the concurrence of opinion of the companions of Mahomed and his disciples.
10
Being analogical deductions derived from comparisons of the first three sources.
11
FURQAN AHMED, Triple Talaq: An Analytical Study with Emphasis on Socio-Legal Aspect (Regency
Publication, New Delhi, 1994) at p. 41.
12
“Divorce is most detestable in the sight of God; abstain from it”; “Divorce shakes the throne of God” comes from
the Hadith, “Al-talaqu indallah-i abghad al mubahat” found in many authentic collections of tradition.
13
Tahir Mahmood, Muslim Law of India (LexisNexis-Butterworths, New Delhi, 3 rd edn., 2002) at p. 48.
14
Verse (4:34, 35) as cited by FAIZUR RAHMAN, “Instant Divorce is alien to Islam’s spirit”, Indian Express,
Kochi edn., June 17 th , 2008; An Enlightenment Commentary into the Light of the Holy Quran (The Scientific and
Religious Center, Iran, 2 nd edn., 1995)
15
(2002) 7 SCC 513
16
Riaz Fatma v. Mohammed Sharif I (2007) DMC 26; 135 (2006) DLT 205; Ummer Farooque v. Naseema 2005 (4)
KLT 565; Nur Ali (Md) v. Thambal Sana Bibi 2007 (1) GLT 508
17
2010 (2) KHC 63
Therefore it is submitted that in the instant case, Asma being a Shia, this form of talaq will be
invalid since it is not recognized under Shia law. Further, the divorce must be treated as a nullity
since there was no attempt to reconciliation.
II. WHETHER THE MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON MARRIAGE)
SECOND ORDINANCE, 2019 IS VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW?
It is most humbly submitted that the Parliament of Pindiana had passed an ordinance The
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Second Ordinance, 2019 which made triple
talaq illegal. In the present case Mukhtar has approached this court through SLP and challenged
the validity of the ordinance stating it to be unconstitutional. It is submitted that the ordinance
passed is valid in the eyes of law due to the following reasons: that circumstances exited that it
was necessary to pass the ordinance[A], the ordinance is not violative to the fundamental rights
as enshrined in the constitution[B], there was no malafide intention in passing of the
ordinance[C] &