1

CourtNo.58

Case:WRITCNo.51421of2016

Petitioner:Smt.HinaAndAnother
Respondent:StateOfU.P.And2Others
CounselforPetitioner:SunilKumarDwivedi
CounselforRespondent:C.S.C.

Hon'bleSuneetKumar,J.
Petitioners claim to have married as per muslim custom
underpersonallaw.Firstpetitioner,i.e.theladyisagedabout23

.IN
years,whereas,secondpetitionerisagedabout53years;bothare
illiterate.ThedocumentinsupportoftheirageistheAadharcard.
W
Both the petitioners are present in the Court, and have been
A

identifiedbytheircounsel.Inpara11ofthepetition,itisaverred
EL

thatthesecondpetitionerhascontractedthepresentmarriageafter
effecting instant talak (Triple Talaq) to his wife. The second
IV

petitioneradmitsbeforetheCourtthatfromhisfirstmarriage,he
.L

hastwominorchildren,oneresidingwiththewifeandotherwith
W

him.Onaspecificqueryastowhenandwhytheinstantdivorce
was effected, the second petitioner would state that to contract
W

second marriage he has divorced his wife, no other reason is

W

pleadedorstatedbeforetheCourt.

Thepetitionersseeka direction to restrain the respondent

policeauthoritiesandthethirdrespondent,whoisthemotherof
theladyfromharassingthem,further,toensuresecurityandsafety
of the petitioners and in particular to the first petitioner. It is
allegedthattherespondentsareharassingthepetitionerslivingas
manandwoman.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitionersareadultandareatlibertytochoosetheirownpartner
onattainingageofmajoritywithinsocialframeworkofthesociety
 2

andthecountry,therefore,thepetitionerscannotbedeprivedof
their life and personal liberty except in accordance with the
procedureestablishedbylawunderArticle21oftheConstitution.

There can be no dispute to the proposition that is being

advanced by learned counsel, nor difference in age is an issue,
whatisdisturbingisthattheinstrumentofinstantdivorce(Triple
Talaq),inthefactsofthepresentcase,hasbeenusedforulterior
purposefordivorcingthewife.Itisnotbeingdisputedthatthefirst
petitioner used to visit Mohalla, Tehsil Rokan Sarai, District

.IN
Bulandshahar,whereshemetthesecondpetitionerandfellinlove,
thereafter, decided to marry. First petitioner left her family and
W
joinedthecompanyofsecondpetitioner,consequently,thesecond
A

petitionerdecidedtogetridofhisfirstwifebydivorcingherby
EL

pronouncinginstanttalaq.

The question which disturbs the Court is should muslim

IV

wivessufferthistyrannyforalltimes?Shouldtheirpersonallaw
.L

remain so cruel towards these unfortunate wives? Whether the

W

personallawcanbeamendedsuitablytoalleviatetheirsufferings?
W

Thejudicialconscienceisdisturbedatthismonstrosity.Thefirst
wifehastolivelifefornofaultofherbutforthereasonthather
W

husbandgotattractedtoaladyhalfofheragewhichisthereason
forbeingdivorced.TheviewthattheMuslimhusbandenjoysan
arbitrary,unilateralpowertoinflictinstantdivorcedoesnotaccord
withIslamicinjunctions.ItisapopularfallacythataMuslimmale
enjoys,undertheQuaranicLaw,unbridledauthoritytoliquidate
themarriage.ThewholeQuoranexpresslyforbidsamantoseek
pretextsfordivorcinghiswife,solongassheremainsfaithfuland
obedienttohim.TheIslamiclawgivestothemanprimarilythe
facultyofdissolvingthemarriage,ifthewife,byherindocilityor
her bad character, renders the married life unhappy; but in the
 3

absenceofseriousreasons,nomancanjustifyadivorce,eitherin
theeyeofreligionorthelaw.Ifheabandonshiswifeorputsher
awayinsimplecaprice,hedrawsuponhimselfthedivineanger,for
thecurseofGod,saidtheProphet,restsonhimwhorepudiateshis
wifecapriciously.InotherIslamicState,wherethehusbandmust
satisfythecourtaboutthereasonsfordivorce.

However,Muslimlaw,asappliedinIndia,hastakenacourse
contrarytothespiritofwhattheProphetortheHolyQuoranlaid
downandthesamemisconceptionvitiatesthelawdealingwiththe

.IN
wife'srighttodivorce.ThedivorceispermissibleinIslamonlyin
cases of extreme emergency. When all efforts for effecting a
W
reconciliationhavefailed,thepartiesmayproceedtoadissolution
A

ofthemarriageby'Talaq'orby'Khola'. Thestatementthat"the
EL

whimsicalandcapriciousdivorcebythehusbandisgoodinlaw,
thoughbadintheology"cannotbeapprovedasthecorrectlaw.The
IV

correctlawoftalaqasordainedbytheHolyQuranisthattalaq
.L

mustbe for areasonable causeandbe precededbyattemptsat

W

reconciliationbetweenthehusbandandthewifebytwoarbiters
onefromthewife'sfamilyandtheotherfromthehusband's;ifthe
W

attempts fail, talaq may be effected. (Ref: Pathayi v. Moideen

W

1968 KLT 763; A. Yousuf Rawther Vs. Sowramma, AIR 1971

Kerala 261; referred to with approval by the Supreme Court in
ShamimAravsStateOfU.P.&another: 2002(7)SCC518).
Thedecisionin ShamimAra wasrenderedin2002,wherein,the
observation of the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High
Courtwasnoticedandapproved,whichwasrendered2030years
before.

Countryhasinrecenttimesmarchedstepsaheadinallwalks
oflifeincludingprogressiveinterpretationoflawswhichcannotbe
lostsightofexceptbycompromisingwithregressivetrends...."Law
 4

is dynamic and its meaning cannot be pedantic but purposeful."

(ReferBaiTahiraVs.AliHussainAIR1979SC362).

ThepurposeofLawinamodernsecularStatebasedupon
the Constitution is to bring about social change. The muslim
community comprise a large percentage of Indian population,
therefore,alargesectionofcitizen,inparticularlywomen,cannot
belefttothemselvestobegovernedbyarchaiccustomsandsocial
practiseunderthegarbofpersonallawpurportedlyhavingdivine
sanction.Thewomenofthecommunity continuetosufferbias,

.IN
deprived of the protection, they should otherwise get through
provisions in the Constitution that provide for equality and non
W
discrimination.
A

India is a nation in the making, geographical boundaries

EL

alonedonotdefineanation.Itistobeadjudged,amongstothers,
on the parameter of overall human development and how the
IV

society in particular treat their women; leaving such a large

.L

populationtothewhims&fancyofpersonallawwhichperpetuate
W

genderinequalityandisregressive,isnotintheinterestofsociety
W

and the country. It impedes and drags India from becoming a

nation. The instant divorce (Triple Talaq) though has been
W

deprecatedandnotfollowedbyallsectsofmuslimcommunityin
thecountry,however,isacruelandthemostdemeaningformof
divorce practised by the muslim community at large. Women
cannotremainatthemercyofthepatriarchalsetupheldunderthe
clutches of sundry clerics having their own interpretation of the
holy Quoran. Personal laws, of any community, cannot claim
supremacy over the rights granted to the individuals by the
Constitution.

Iwouldnotliketosayanythingfurtherforthereasonthat
theSupremeCourtisseizedwiththematter.
 5

In ShamimAra,astatementmerelymadeinthepleadings
written statement though unsubstantiated that the wife was
divorcedupondeliveringcopyofthewrittenstatement,wasnot
accepted by the Supreme Court and the subsequent marriage
contractedbythehusbandwasheldvoid.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the

petitionstandsdismissed.Thelegalityofthemarriage/divorceand
rightsofpartiesiskeptopen.

Nocost.

OrderDate:5.11.2016
MukeshKr.
.IN
A W
EL
IV
.L
W
W
W