SC Declines Urgent Hearing Of Plea Challenging Talaq-E-Hasan

The Supreme Court has declined the urgent hearing of a plea challenging the practice of Talaq-E-Hasan. A petitioner journalist Benazeer Heena mentioned for urgent hearing of the plea challenging the practice of Talaq-E-Hasan.

By Sugandha Jha
Mon, 30 May 2022 04:09 PM IST
Minute Read
SC Declines Urgent Hearing Of Plea Challenging Talaq-E-Hasan
Talaq-E-Hasan

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

A vacation bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna asked the petitioner to mention 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 have been sent to the woman.

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

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

The bench asked Anand to approach the mentioning Registrar. "Make a request to the Registrar and if he does not 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 mention it again this week.

The petition was filed in the top court seeking to declare that Talaq-E-Hasan and all other forms of Unilateral Extra-Judicial Talaq as unconstitutional and sought to issue direction to the Centre to frame 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 does not resume during this period, the divorce gets formalised after the third utterance in the third month. However, if cohabitation resumes after the first or second utterance of talaq, the parties are assumed to have reconciled. The first and second utterances of talaq are deemed invalid.

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

The plea filed by the woman said that "many Islamic nations have restricted such practice, while it continues to vex the Indian society in general and Muslim women like the petitioner in particular."

The petitioner further submitted that the practice also wreaks havoc on the lives of 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 all other forms of Unilateral Extra-Judicial Talaq" are void and unconstitutional.

As per the plea, the petitioner was married to a man as per Muslim rites on and has a male child from wedlock. The petitioner claimed that her parents were compelled to give dowry and later she was tortured for not getting a big dowry.

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

When the petitioner's father refused to give dowry then her husband gave her Unilateral Extra-Judicial Talaq-E-Hasan through a lawyer, which is totally 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 so far as it validates the practice of "Talaq-E-Hasan and other forms 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 so far as it fails to secure for Muslim women the protection from "Talaq-E-Hasan and other forms of unilateral extra-judicial talaq".

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

This website uses cookie or similar technologies, to enhance your browsing experience and provide personalised recommendations. By continuing to use our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.