Pinnacle Court declines immediate listening of case challenging Talaq-E-Hasan

30-05-2022
The matter was mentioned last week also for urgent hearing but the bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud had asked the counsel to say it again in the week.

The Supreme Court on Monday again declined the urgent hearing of a plea challenging the practice of Talaq-E-Hasan, as per which a person can divorce his wife by pronouncing "talaq" once a month for 3 months.

A vacation bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna asked the petitioner to say the matter before the Registrar.

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand, appearing for the petitioner, journalist Benazeer Heena mentioned for urgent hearing of the plea challenging the practice of Talaq-E-Hasan and said that two notices are sent to the lady.

Anand contended that Talaq-e-Hasan has three notices, and therefore the first notice was on April 19 and also the last one was on May 19.

"The petition was filed on May 2. Here, the girl has been granted notices of divorce twice. the girl is with a baby. the primary notice was given on April 19 and also the second notice was issued on May 19," Anand told the bench.

The bench asked Anand to approach the mentioning Registrar. "Make a call for participation to the Registrar and if he doesn't listen then come to us," said the bench.

The matter was mentioned last week also for urgent hearing but the bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud had asked the counsel to say it again in the week.

The petition was filed within the top court seeking to declare that Talaq-E-Hasan and every one other sorts of Unilateral Extra-Judicial Talaq as unconstitutional and sought to issue direction to the Centre to border guidelines for Gender Neutral Religion Neutral Uniform Grounds of Divorce and Uniform Procedure of Divorce for all.

In Talaq-E-Hasan, talaq is pronounced once a month, over a period of three months and if cohabitation doesn't resume during this era, the divorce gets formalised after the third utterance within the third month. However, if cohabitation resumes after the primary or second utterance of talaq, the parties are assumed to possess reconciled. the primary and second utterances of talaq are deemed invalid.

The practice of Talaq-E-Hasan and other varieties of unilateral extra-judicial talaq is neither harmonious with the fashionable principles of human rights and gender equality, nor an integral a part of the Islamic faith, it's said.

The plea filed by the girl said that "many Islamic nations have restricted such practice, while it continues to vex the Indian society normally and Muslim women just like the petitioner specifically."

The petitioner further submitted that the practice also wreaks havoc on the lives of the many women and their children, especially those belonging to the weaker economic sections of society.

The plea sought direction to declare "Talaq-E-Hasan and every one other varieties of Unilateral Extra-Judicial Talaq" are void and unconstitutional.

As per the plea, the petitioner was married to a person as per Muslim rites on and includes a child from wedlock. The petitioner claimed that her parents were compelled to provide dowry and later she was tortured for not getting an enormous dowry.

The petitioner also claimed that her husband and his members of the family tortured her physically-mentally not only after the wedding but also during the pregnancy which made her seriously ill.

When the petitioner's father refused to grant dowry then her husband gave her Unilateral Extra-Judicial Talaq-E-Hasan through a lawyer, which is completely against Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 and UN Conventions, the petitioner's lawyer said.

She has also sought direction to direct and declare Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 as void and unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, in thus far because it validates the practice of "Talaq-E-Hasan and other styles of unilateral extra-judicial talaq".

It also sought to declare the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, is void and unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25 in to date because it fails to secure for Muslim women the protection from "Talaq-E-Hasan and other types of unilateral extra-judicial talaq".

The petitioner also sought to issue direction to border guidelines for Gender Neutral Religion Neutral Uniform Grounds of Divorce and Uniform Procedure of Divorce for all.