Read Time: 05 minutes
Benazeer Heena, a journalist, has challenged the practice of Talaq-E-Hasan on the ground that it is arbitrary. The plea, filed through Ashwini Upadhyay seeks directions to frame guidelines for gender-neutral, religion-neutral uniform grounds of divorce & uniform procedure of divorce.
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh today observed that the practice of using Talaq-e-Hasan for divorce by Muslims is not prima facie improper. Talaq-e-Hasan is the practice wherein a Muslim man can divorce his wife by saying the word "talaq" once a month, for three months.
While hearing the Public Interest Litigation that seeks direction of the court to declare the practice of Talaq-e-Hasan and other forms of unilateral extrajudicial talaqs void and unconstitutional, the bench further observed that the case should not be used for furthering an agenda.
Filed by a journalist namely Benazeer Heena through Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, the petition notes that "Muslim women can’t give Talaq-E-Hasan & other forms of unilateral extra-judicial talaq but Muslim men can".
It seeks direction to frame guidelines for gender-neutral, religion-neutral uniform grounds of divorce & uniform procedure of divorce. As per the plea, Heena has filed the PIL for the development of socially-economically downtrodden and marginalized citizens.
The plea claims that Heena married one Yusuf Naqi as per Muslim rites on December 25, 2020, and a male child was born from wedlock. It has been alleged that Heena's parents were compelled to give dowry and later she was tortured for not getting a big dowry.
It has been stated in the plea that Heena's husband and his family members tortured her physically-mentally not only after the marriage but also during the pregnancy which made her seriously ill and when Heena’s father refused to give dowry then her husband gave her Unilateral Extra-Judicial Talaq-E-Hasan through a Lawyer. Heena has argued that such a divorce is totally against Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 of the Constitution of India, and United Nations Conventions.
When the matter was called for hearing, Senior Advocate Pinki Anand, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that though the Supreme Court has declared triple talaq unconstitutional, it left the issue of Talaq-E-Hasan open to be decided in an appropriate case.
The bench, at this point, remarked that women have an option by way of 'Khula'. It further remarked that the courts have granted divorce by mutual consent in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Justice Kaul remarked, “This is not triple talaq. Are you open to divorce my mutual consent if mehar is taken care of?”
The bench also asked whether the petitioner would be open to divorce if payment is made over and above mehar. Anand sought time to take instructions on this aspect.
The bench, thus, adjourned the case for further consideration to August 29.
Case title: Benazeer Heena Vs Union of India
Please Login or Register
