Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has delivered a significant verdict, ruling that in-laws cannot be prosecuted for triple talaq pronounced by the husband, urging the necessity of implementing the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) beyond its current theoretical status.

The court, presided over by Justice Anil Verma, noted that “Section 3 & 4 of the Act of 2019 (Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019) applies only against the Muslim husband. Therefore, the petitioner who are the mother-in-law and sister- in-law of the complainant cannot be prosecuted for the offence of pronouncement of triple Talaq under the Act of 2019, as the aforesaid offence can only be committed by a Muslim husband.”

However, citing the apex court’s verdict in ‘Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India’, which declared the practice of Triple Talaq illegal, and thereafter the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019, by the Indian Parliament as a law, to make instant Triple Talaq a criminal offence. The court underscored the need for UCC, observing that “It is definitely a great move towards equality and social amendments. It took many years for the Law makers to realise that triple talaq is unconstitutional and bad for society. We should now realise the need for a “Uniform Civil Code” in our country.”

The court made the observations while hearing a case which involved the petitioners seeking to quash an FIR registered against them under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. The FIR, filed by the complainant at P.S. Rajpur, District Badwani, accused her husband, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law of demanding dowry, physically and mentally harassing her, and pronouncing triple talaq.

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Sudhanshu Vyas, argued that the alleged offences occurred within the jurisdiction of Mumbai, thereby questioning the jurisdiction of P.S. Rajpur to register the FIR. Additionally, he contended that the provisions of Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalizes the pronouncement of triple talaq, apply only to Muslim husbands and not to their in-laws. The petitioners also cited a delay of 14 months in filing the FIR and challenged the veracity of the allegations.

On the other hand, Advocate Amay Bajaj, representing the State, countered that the allegations of harassment and dowry demand justified the registration of the FIR. The State's counsel further argued that the delay in filing the FIR did not invalidate the complaint and that jurisdictional issues should be considered based on the impact and continuation of the alleged offences.

The court addressed the jurisdictional argument by referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in ‘Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh’, which allows courts in the location where a victim seeks refuge to hear domestic violence cases. It ruled that the Rajpur police station had the jurisdiction to register the FIR since the complainant had taken refuge in Badwani.

The court agreed with the petitioners that the provisions of Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, do not apply to the mother-in-law and sister-in-law, leading to the quashing of the charges under this section against them. However, it upheld the other charges, noting the prima facie evidence of mental and physical harassment and the demand for dowry.

Conclusively, the HC partially allowed the petition by quashing the charges under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act against the petitioners but maintained the other charges for trial.

 

Cause Title: Smt. Aliya v State of Madhya Pradesh [MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57067 of 2021]