Triple Talaq Cannot Be Judicially Validated After Shayara Bano Verdict: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that courts cannot grant declarations validating triple talaq after the Supreme Court declared the practice unconstitutional in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, while rejecting a husband’s plea seeking recognition of an alleged oral divorce pronounced in 2015.

Justice Vivek Jain observed that the suit filed by the husband was “vexatious and frivolous” and amounted to an attempt to secure judicial approval for a practice already held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The case arose from a civil revision petition and a connected miscellaneous petition filed by wife Rubina Kavi against Rizwan Ali, who had instituted a suit seeking a declaration that he had divorced his wife through triple talaq on January 14, 2015, in the presence of two witnesses.

According to the original plaint, the husband had claimed that the wife subjected him to mental cruelty, following which he orally pronounced triple talaq and later reduced it into writing through a talaqnama dated January 14, 2015.

During the pendency of the suit, the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano declared the practice of instant triple talaq unconstitutional in 2017. Following the ruling, the wife moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit itself was barred by law. However, the civil court rejected the plea in 2018, holding that the Supreme Court judgment would apply prospectively and not retrospectively.

After the matter was transferred to the Family Court, the wife again sought rejection of the plaint. Faced with the challenge, the husband amended the plaint in 2023 and claimed that the divorce was not an instant triple talaq pronounced on a single day, but was allegedly pronounced at three different times between 2013 and 2014. The High Court noted that the original plaint and the talaqnama contained no such assertions and only referred to triple talaq pronounced on January 14, 2015.

Rejecting the amended stand, the Court held that the subsequent pleadings were merely “an attempt to wriggle out of the judgment” delivered in Shayara Bano. The Court said the talaqnama itself clearly stated that a triple talaq had been pronounced in the presence of two witnesses and did not mention any earlier pronouncements of talaq in 2013 or 2014.

Justice Jain further clarified that judicial interpretation of law by constitutional courts is ordinarily retrospective unless specifically stated otherwise. Referring to an earlier division bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Court reiterated that once the Supreme Court declared triple talaq unconstitutional, no civil court could grant a declaration validating such a divorce, even if the talaqnama predated the Shayara Bano ruling.

“The suit in question is also vexatious and frivolous piece of litigation seeking declaration on the basis of oral triple talaq and no such declaration can be granted as per law,” the Court observed.

Allowing the wife’s petitions, the High Court held that both the trial court and the Family Court ought to have exercised powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint at the threshold itself. The Court accordingly rejected the husband’s plaint.

The Court also underlined that amendments to pleadings cannot fundamentally alter the nature of a suit or introduce a new cause of action after commencement of trial. It observed that while parties may pursue remedies under personal law, courts cannot permit litigants to reshape earlier pleadings to bypass constitutional rulings.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s findings in Shayara Bano, the High Court reiterated that instant triple talaq permits unilateral dissolution of marriage without scope for reconciliation, making the practice arbitrary and legally unenforceable.

At the same time, the Court granted liberty to the husband to seek divorce through any other legally permissible method available under Muslim law. Mukhtar Ahmad appeared for the petitioner-wife, while Devendra Kumar Gangrade represented the respondent-husband.

Case Title: Smt. Rubina Kavi v. Rizwan Ali and connected matter

Date of Order: April 22, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Jain