Supreme Court says triple talaq notices through lawyers not valid

Source: Times of India

The Supreme Court questioned the validity of Muslim men authorizing lawyers to issue triple talaq notices, stating it's not a valid divorce without the husband's signature. The bench emphasized that such practices cannot harm Muslim women's dignity and will not permit unauthorized divorce notifications. To read more please go to the following link:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-3-talaqs-sent-through-lawyer-not-valid/articleshow/125450139.cms

Reflections on Supreme Court Ruling on Maintenance for Divorced Muslim Women

 Soource: News 18

Arshia Malik writes that - By ensuring that Muslim women receive their entitlements and have access to social and economic security, the Supreme Court judgement represents significant progress in India’s journey toward gender justice. To read more, please go to the following link:

https://www.news18.com/opinion/opinion-reflections-on-supreme-court-ruling-on-maintenance-for-divorced-muslim-women-8970290.html

Can an under-18 Muslim girl be married? HC verdict puts focus back on Child Marriage law

 Source: The Print (https://theprint.in)

HC grants protection to 17-year-old girl & her spouse as Muslim personal law allows marriage after age 15. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act is silent on personal laws.....

To read this article by Apoorva Mandhani, go to the following link:

 https://theprint.in/judiciary/can-an-under-18-muslim-girl-be-married-hc-verdict-puts-focus-back-on-child-marriage-law/604032/

First woman moves Supreme Court over triple talaq law

Source: Hindustan Times dated 09.07.2020

-- Abraham Thomas
Link to the article: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/1st-woman-moves-sc-over-triple-talaq-law/story-GDNz12PC0SSXEXNrNZWm0O.html

The law was passed in July 2019 after intense debates in both the lower and upper houses of the Parliament, with opposition parties stating that the law targeted the Muslim community even as the centre asserted that the law would help achieve gender justice for Muslim women.

A Kerala lawyer has moved the Supreme Court against a law that criminalises the practice of granting instant divorce becoming the first Muslim woman to do so since Parliament passed the legislation in 2019.

Noorbeena Rasheed on July 6 challenged the Protection of Rights on Marriage Act, which provides for a three-year punishment for talaq-e-biddat, a practise also referred to as Triple Talaq, which is practised among a small section of Muslims in the country. “The protection of women cannot be achieved by incarceration of husbands,” her petition stated.

Issuing a notice to the Centre, a bench of three justices led by N V Ramana on Monday admitted Rasheed’s petition, which will be heard with nine similar pleas challenging the law’s validity. The other petitioners include organisations like Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Muslim Advocates Association, and two individuals. The petitions have called the law disproportionate as well as excessive and stringent and sought that the court hold it unconstitutional. A date for hearing these petitions has not been listed as yet.

The law was passed in July 2019 after intense debates in both the lower and upper houses of the Parliament, with opposition parties stating that the law targeted the Muslim community even as the centre asserted that the law would help achieve gender justice for Muslim women.

Rasheed’s petition questions provisions of the law including one which allows relatives of the women to file complaints. The petition stated that this provision could potentially destroy marital relationships in case of false complaint. “This provision is highly detrimental not only to the wife but also to the marital relationship.”

Her petition also sought clarification from the Centre on the assessment that underlies incarcerating Muslim men for divorcing women. “Welfare-oriented legislation would promote amicable resolution of matrimonial disputes rather than criminalise marital discord, particularly criminalisation of only one community…the intent behind the Act is not abolition of triple talaq [instant divorce] but punishment of Muslim husbands,” her petition said.

Rasheed’s lawyer, Zulfikar Ali, said they want to highlight how the law will be detrimental to the interests of Muslim women, which it seeks to protect.” He added Rasheed is also the national general secretary of the Indian Union Women’s League, which he described as the country’s largest Muslim women organisation affiliated to the Kerala-based Indian Union Muslim League (IUML). IUML has three members in Parliament’s lower House, or Lok Sabha.

In August 2017, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had declared the practice of talaq-e-biddat (a heretical form of divorce based on a husband pronouncing divorce thrice in quick succession) as unconstitutional. The practice is banned in most Muslim countries including Pakistan.

The verdict came on a petition of five Muslim women, including lead petitioner Shayara Bano, who were abandoned after their husbands pronounced instant divorce.

The Centre initially issued an ordinance after the verdict to criminalise the practice of triple talaq for the want of majority in Parliament’s upper house, or Rajya Sabha, before bringing the law.

The law makes the practice a cognisable offence. An offence of such a nature allows the police to carry out arrests without a warrant. Serious crimes such as theft, rape, and murder are also cognisable offences.

In its petition, Jamiat-Ulama-I-Hind has said there are graver offences like rioting and bribery under the Indian Penal Code for which there is a lesser punishment than instant divorce.

Law and injustice: instead of a separate law on triple talaq, Centre should have framed a just law for all

Article in the Indian Express dated August 14, 2019 regarding Triple Talaq by Razia Patel (Chairperson, Muslim Mahila Sanvidhan Hakka Parishad). Link to this article:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/42474431

SC accepts plea bby couple, says no need to register marriage under special law

Article in the Indian Express dated August 13, 2019 regarding the Marriage laws. Link to this article:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/42437257

A step for gender justice

Article in the Indian Express dated August 2, 2019 regarding Triple Talaq by Bhupender Yadav. Link to this article:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/42061332

Power, not justice: criminalising triple divorce

Article in the Indian Express dated August 1, 2019 regarding Triple Talaq by Faizan Mustafa (VC, NALSAR Univ. of Law, Hyderabad). Link to this article:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/42025303

Taking down patriarchy

Article in the Indian Express dated August 1, 2019 regarding Triple Talaq by Shazia Ilmi. Link to this article:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/42025258

A historic moment for social justice

Source: Hindustan times dated 01.08.2019

Zakia Soman (Founding member of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, one of the petitioners in triple talaq case)

Criminalisation is a key deterrent against triple talaq. Social reform must follow the legal change

The passing of the law against instant triple talaq is a historic moment. Reform in Muslim personal law has been mired in politics and patriarchy for decades. Gender justice for Muslim women in marriage and family has been of no interest to anyone. But this unfortunate reality began to change in the last 10 to 12 years, with Muslim women raising their voice, and demanding fair play in family matters.

Unlike in 1985, when the lone voice of Shah Bano was crushed by all — government, politicians, clergymen — several Muslim women have publicly demanded an end to instant triple talaq to bring fairness in divorce practices. They have approached the Supreme Court, made appeals to Parliament, and put pressure on the government and the Opposition. All of this, eventually, culminated into public discourse and support for the abolition of instant triple talaq.

Much of the opposition to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019 has been because it was brought about by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government. But most of the so-called secular

political parties failed to see the currents of change within the community. Every woman affected by instant triple talaq is also somebody’s daughter, somebody’s sister, somebody’s mother, and the practice leads to pain and trauma for the whole family.

Besides, there has been a growing awareness about Quranic injunctions on gender justice. Today, Muslims are aware that instant triple talaq is not sanctioned by the Quran. The conservative All India Muslim Personal Law Board could not achieve much success in their attempts to invoke fear of “interference in shariat (Islamic law based on the teachings of Quran and traditions of the Prophet)”. Sadly, the so-called secular parties remained ambiguous, and did not openly support the agitating Muslim women.

This provided a window of opportunity to the BJP beyond their stated commitment to the Uniform Civil Code. It is pointless to go into the motivations of the ruling party, but do note that the Constitution mandates legal protection for women. It speaks volumes for the kind of secularism practised in our country that it took seven decades for a legislation over triple talaq to become reality.

One of the key objections to the new law is that it criminalises instant triple talaq, which is a civil matter. I welcome the law, while stating that the objective is not to punish the man, but to ensure justice and fair play to the victim woman. Nevertheless, a law would be meaningless without deterrence. Triple talaq has been taking place despite the SC judgment banning it. In such circumstances, what is the aggrieved woman supposed to do? She can do little else apart from quoting the judgment to the husband determined to pronounce talaq and throw her out.

However, the law enables reconciliation between the two, by making the offence bailable and compoundable. The fear mongering is unfounded as the First Information Report can be registered only by the wife or family members — all of whom would be fellow Muslims. The demonisation of the woman that she is waiting for the law to send the husband behind bars is ludicrous, and undoubtedly, patriarchal. After all, we are aware of the pathetically low conviction rates in cases dealing with, for example, bigamy, dowry, domestic violence and child sexual assault.

Those opposing the triple talaq law never engaged with the question of justice for Muslim women, but are now suddenly concerned about the harm that the law would bring. Their argument — “Who will provide for her for the three years when the husband is in jail?” — makes me laugh. For heaven’s sake, how did they learn that the husband pronouncing instant unilateral talaq follows up by providing maintenance to the wife he has just divorced? There are hundreds of documented cases of women saying that they did not receive a dime from the husband. Not just that, in several cases, the husband took away even her belongings and the items woman brought with her at the time of marriage.

The opposition to the bill smacks of political motivations, patriarchal mindsets, and utter lack of understanding about the lived realities of Muslim women. Some well-known figures too have joined the opposition – as, in their eyes, the BJP government can do no good ever. In throwing out the baby with the bath water, they are unwittingly contributing in retaining the male-dominated status quo.

It is not my case that the law will drastically and immediately change the lives of Muslim women. Legal reform is an important aspect of a much larger process of social reform. Large sections of Indian Muslim are poor, educationally and economically deprived. They are under threat from communal violence and discrimination. The triple talaq law will have to be followed by awareness, education and empowerment of both women and men. It will support the efforts of those who are engaged within the community working for social justice, empowerment and democracy.

Renouncing Islam can annul marriage: HC

Source: The Times Of India dared May 12, 2014

Renouncing Islam can annul marriage: HC

Abhinav Garg TNN 

New Delhi: Interpreting a 75-year-old law, the Delhi high court has held that a woman who had embraced Islam after marriage but reconverted to her original faith can dissolve the marriage due to apostasy, which is defined as the renunciation or abandonment of one’s religious or political beliefs. 
    Granting divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 to Sultana (name changed), a division bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Najmi Waziri clarified there is no requirement in such circumstances for a woman who leaves the pale of Islam to prove her act in a trial. The mere act of apostasy dissolves the marriage if she so desires. 
KNOTTY ISSUE 
    A woman who converted to Islam then reconverted to Hinduism seeks divorce on the ground of apostasy 
    Husband seeks proof of her renunciation of Islam 
    HC rejects the husband’s contention that she needed to prove apostasy saying: “Being of a religious persuasion or belief in a particular religion and continuance thereof is an existential choice.”

No need to prove apostasy to get divorce: HC

    A woman married under Muslim personal law is not empowered, nor is she conferred a right to divorce her husband by apostatizing. All that the law states is that were a woman married under the Muslim personal law to apostatize, the marriage stands dissolved. In such circumstances, the woman is entitled to seek a decree of declaration that the marriage stands dissolved from the date of her apostatizing,” Justice Waziri said. 
    The bench went into the circumstances under which the pre-Independence Act was passed in 1939 to emphasize, if people come or are brought into Islam from a different religion, they should be permitted to go back for which there should be no bar. In such a scenario there must be an immediate dissolution of marriage. 
    The court was hearing an appeal filed by Sultana’s husband Asif challenging the grant of divorce by a Saket family court on her petition. Asif contested the act of Sultana’s reconversion to Hinduism and alleged she did it under pressure from her parents. Asif also cited Section 4 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act that deals with the “effect of conversion to another faith” to contend that Section 4 prohibits dissolution of marriage only on the ground of apostasy. 
    On her part the estranged wife argued that for her reconversion to Hinduism no evidence was required as her mere statement ‘ipso facto’ amounts to abjuration of Islam and its tenets. She also filed an affidavit admitting to her apostasy along with two fatwas from two muftis. 
    The court agreed with the trial court verdict and ruled that Section 4 has not altered the rule of Muslim personal law that apostasy dissolves a marriage. Rejecting Asif ’s argument that Sultana needs to prove the act of apostasy, HC added, “Being of a religious persuasion or belief in a particular religion and continuance thereof is an existential choice. Manifestations of religious practices of a particular religion could lead to the inference of the person’s adherence to that religion. However, faith itself cannot be seen unless the person chooses to make it obvious, which in this case she has done.”

SC Strikes A Blow For Uniform Civil Code

Source: The Times of India dated 20.02.2014

Muslim personal law can’t curtail right to adopt: SC

Strikes A Blow For Uniform Civil Code

Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN 

New Delhi: In a landmark order indirectly pushing for the Constitution-suggested Uniform Civil Code, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that personal law prohibition against adoption would not bar a Muslim from adopting a child if he chose the secular Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act route. 

    Giving the judgment on a PIL by Shabnam Hashmi nine years back, a bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and S K Singh said the JJ Act was a secular law which gave prospective parents the option to adopt a child. “A Muslim was always free to exercise his option either to adhere to the personal law prohibition against adoption or choose JJ Act route to take a child into his/her family,” the bench said, adding “To us, the Act is a small step in reaching the goal enshrined by Article 44 of the Constitution.” 

    Article 44 of the Constitution says, “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.” The bench said, “The vision contemplated in Article 44 of the Constitution, that is a Uniform Civil Code, is a goal yet to be fully reached.” 

    The Muslim Personal Law Board had opposed Hashmi’s plea for a uniform adoption law that would prevail over all religious prohibitions. The board had given elaborate arguments against permitting Muslims to adopt children. The board had said Islam did not recognize an adopted child to be treated on a par with a biological child. “The Islamic law professes ‘kafla’ system under which the child is placed under ‘kafil’ who provides for the well-being of the child, including financial support, and this is legally allowed to take care of the child though the child remains the descendant of his biological parents and not of the ‘adoptive’ parents,” it said. 

SHOWING THE 'SECULAR' WAY 
    The Muslim Personal Law Board prohibits adoption, says Islam does not allow an adopted child to be treated at par with a biological child 

    SC refuses to restrain a Muslim from adopting a child if he/she chooses the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act route 

    However, the court also feels that the time is not ripe to lift the statutory right to adoption to the level of a fundamental right 

    The (Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children) Act is a small step in reaching the goal enshrined by Article 44 (Uniform Civil Code)... The same can only happen by the collective decision of the generation(s) to come to sink conflicting faiths and beliefs 

    — Supreme Court Not time yet to make adoption a fundamental right, says SC 

    The board attempted to give legal recognition to its religious ‘kafla’ system by informing the court that even UN Convention of the Rights of Child recognized it as an alternative to child care contemplated under the JJ Act. The court, however, refused to restrain a Muslim if he/she chose to take JJ Act route to adopt on the grounds that faith did not permit it. 

    Writing the judgment, Justice Gogoi said, “An optional legislation (JJ Act) that does not contain an unavoidable imperative cannot be stultified by principles of personal law which, however, would always continue to govern any person who chooses to so submit himself until such time that the vision of Uniform Civil Code is achieved. The same can only happen by collective decision of the generation(s) to come to sink conflicting faiths and beliefs that are still active today.” 

    The conflict in thinking fuelled by dictates of religions was also the reason why the court felt the time was not ripe to lift the statutory right to adopt to the level of a fundamental right. It said, “Conflicting view points prevailing between different communities as on date on the subject makes the vision contemplated in Article 44, that is a Uniform Civil Code, a goal yet to be fully reached and the court is reminded of the anxiety expressed by it earlier with regard to the necessity to maintain restraint. All these impel us to take the view that the present is not an appropriate time and stage where the right to adopt and the right to be adopted can be raised to the status of a fundamental right and/or to understand such a right to be encompassed by Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court said.

Disappointed Muslim board may seek review 

New Delhi: The SC decision on Wednesday to allow people of all religions, including Muslims, to adopt children, though it is not allowed under Muslim personal law, evoked mixed reactions from the community. While Syed Zafar Mahmood, former OSD to the Sachar Committee and Zakat Foundation of India president, called it the “best that could have happened”, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said it was considering legal options against the judgment. The AIMPLB had vehemently opposed Shabnam Hashmi’s plea for a uniform adoption law in the SC. Pointing out that Prophet Muhammad encouraged adoption, Zafar Mahmood said, “The judgment dovetails the Islamic law with the law of the land. The SC, while clearly desisting from declaring it a fundamental right, has technically enabled Muslims to opt for adoption. This is the best that could have happened.” AIMPLB spokesperson Abdur Raheem Qureshi, however, said the judgment interfered with fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. “We are mulling legal options, including seeking a review of the judgment,” he said. SQR Ilyas of the Welfare Party called the apex court judgment “unfortunate”.