Read Time: 05 minutes

The Supreme Court today issued notice in pleas seeking to declare that “All forms of Unilateral Extra-Judicial Talaq including Talaq-E-Kinaya and Talaq-E- Bain” is void and unconstitutional for being arbitrary irrational and contrary to Articles 14, 15, 21, 25. 

A bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer and JB Pardiwala has also tagged the plea with matters challenging Talaq-E-Hasan and Talaq-E-Ahsan, which are listed on 11th October.

The petition also seeks direction to Centre to frame guidelines for “Gender Neutral Religion Neutral Uniform Grounds of Divorce and Uniform Procedure of Divorce for all citizens”.

Filed through Advocate Anantha Narayana MG, the plea has sought a direction to declare S. 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-Kinaya and Talaq-E- Bain” and other forms of unilateral extra-judicial talaq.

A declaration is also sought for the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, as to be void and unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 21 25 in so far as it fails to secure for Muslim women from “Talaq-E-Kinaya and Talaq- E-Bain” and other forms of unilateral extra-judicial talaq.

Recently, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh had 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.

Top Court had made this observation while hearing the Public Interest Litigation filed by a journalist namely Benazeer Heena through Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, that sought 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.

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, had 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. 

Case Title: Dr. Sayeeda Ambreen vs. Union of India