SC Stays Talaq-e-Hasan After Wife Alleges Signatures Taken on Blank Papers; Notes Husband’s Continued Absence

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday stayed the operation of an alleged talaq-e-hasan divorce issued by a Muslim husband to his illiterate wife, observing that the husband did not enter appearance to defend serious allegations levelled against him.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in a petition arising from the Benazeer Heena v. Union of India matter, while also issuing notice in a connected petition challenging the constitutional validity of talaq-e-ahsan.

During the hearing, the Bench underscored that courts must exercise minimal interference in religious matters unless constitutional or human rights concerns arise; “While respecting all religions, the first principle for a court should be to have least interference in religious affairs, unless we find that protection of the internal values and customs of a particular religion directly hits some constitutional rights or human rights,” the Bench observed.

The Court further observed that the husband failed to appear in court and did not deny the wife’s allegations that he had obtained her signatures on blank papers before claiming to have granted talaq.

Noting these circumstances, the Bench ordered that the operation of the alleged talaq-e-hasan be stayed and directed that the parties shall be deemed to be validly married unless the husband appears and establishes that a valid talaq has been effected. The Court also directed the concerned SHO to ascertain the husband’s whereabouts and ensure his presence before the Court.

The petitioner in the stay application was described as an illiterate homemaker who had married the respondent in 2021.

The Bench noted that she had made several allegations against her husband, but he did not enter appearance despite service of notice. The Court clarified that its stay of the talaq-e-hasan order in this case was a consequence of the husband’s non-appearance and not a declaration on the validity of the form of divorce itself.

In the connected petition, the Court issued notice on a plea represented by Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, challenging talaq-e-ahsan as violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner in that matter has asserted that her husband delivered the talaq through email, WhatsApp and registered post, and has sought interim guidelines, pending legislative action, to ensure that Muslim women subjected to “unlawful talaq, retaliatory criminal proceedings and police bias” are not left remediless.

In the lead Benazeer Heena case, Advocate Dr. Rizwan Ahmed informed the Court that a contempt petition had been filed against the husband for allegedly attempting to grant talaq again in an invalid manner pursuant to the Court’s last order.

After hearing both sides, the Bench observed that there was an urgent need to refer the parties to mediation to explore an amicable resolution of the dispute and a valid dissolution of the marriage through a valid talaq or any other mutually acceptable alternative.

With the consent of both sides, the Court appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph as the sole senior mediator and directed the parties and their counsel to contact him by the next day to fix a date for mediation.

The Bench requested that Justice Joseph endeavour to resolve the matter within four weeks.

In view of mediation having been initiated, the Court further directed that the earlier talaq notices alleged to have been given by the respondent husband shall remain in abeyance.

The Court was also urged to pass an interim order restraining talaqs by virtual modes such as WhatsApp and email, but the Bench declined to do so at this stage, indicating that appropriate orders will be considered after hearing both sides on the broader questions raised.

Earlier, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, appearing for another petitioner, argued that despite the ruling in Shayara Bano striking down instant triple talaq (talaq-e-bidat), Talaq-e-Hasan continued to deny Muslim women equal rights available to women of other faiths. She narrated the experience of a woman who, after repeated pleas for support, was unilaterally pronounced “talaq” without receiving maintenance or a formal talaqnama.

The said PIL goes back to 2022, when Benazeer Heena approached the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that talaq-e-hasan and other forms of unilateral extra-judicial talaq be declared void and unconstitutional. Filed through Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, the plea highlighted that while Muslim men can resort to such forms of talaq, Muslim women cannot, and sought the framing of gender-neutral and religion-neutral uniform grounds and procedures for divorce.

Senior Advocate M.R. Shamshad appeared for the respondent; Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari appeared for a petitioner in the talaq-e-ahsan challenge; Advocate Dr. Rizwan Ahmed and Advocate on Record Pulkit Agarwal appeared for Benazeer Heena, alongside Advocate Nizam Pasha.

Case Title: Benazeer Heena Vs Union of India

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Order date: 11.02.2026