Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, April 28, 2024

Parliament Rightly Makes Triple Talaq Criminal But Bailable Offence

Posted in: Family Law
Wed, Aug 14, 19, 10:11, 5 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 7918
Muslims like triple talaq and nikah halala by which if a husband pronounces triple talaq and he wants to marry her again then the women first has to undergo marriage with some other men then take divorce from him and then marry her former husband.

It is a happy moment for not just me but for Muslim society as a whole. We have been freed of an evil custom. Generations of women have suffered due to instant triple talaq. They have been thrown out of their house overnight and made to go through hell.- Shayara Bano who litigated in Apex Court to outlaw it and got it done.

It is a Himalayan blunder that while Hindus were banned from marrying more than one women or men but Muslims were not similarly banned which cannot be justified under any circumstances. Jawaharlal Nehru only thought about welfare and prosperity of Hindus but not of Muslims. The population of Hindus thus got contained due to which they have gained immensely but Muslims suffered terribly as their population swelled as they were permitted to marry upto 4 wives in case of Sunnis and no limit among Shias by virtue of Muta marriage and a large chunk of the population is compelled to live in dire straits.

Similarly Nehru took no other initiative to end other bad practices prevalent among Muslims like triple talaq and nikah halala by which if a husband pronounces triple talaq and he wants to marry her again then the women first has to undergo marriage with some other men then take divorce from him and then marry her former husband. Nothing on earth can be more terrible than this which makes a complete mockery of the dignity and esteem of women in the society. But why blame Nehru alone? No PM till recently ever took any initiative in this regard. Yes, late former PM Rajiv Gandhi wanted to take initiatives with his Union Minister Arif Mohammad Khan advising him but he buckled under pressure from fundamentalists and politicians supporting them within his party who were more in number.

What a crowning irony that now when PM Narendra Modi has taken this great initiative, he is being criticized and castigated by members of the same grand old Congress party. Former Finance Minister and senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley said that the triple talaq bill aimed at banning the practice of instant divorce among Muslims, exposed those who consider themselves liberals. He wrote in his tweet that, A 'liberal' should ordinarily be hostile to the idea of discrimination and injustice perpetuated by an oral divorce. In this case, not one spoke in favour of the Bill which is ending the injustice. They raised weak arguments so that the fundamentalists amongst the Muslims are kept happy.

Without mincing any words, the former Union Law Minister Arun Jaitley rightly said that, Let us assume the reverse of the present situation. What if such a provision existed in Hindu law? Liberals, leftists, women organizations and perhaps even the judiciary would have been shocked with such a provision and would have attempted either for a repeal of the law or it being declared unconstitutional. These people stand exposed because what they have attempted to raise farcical objections.

He also rightly pointed out that, While the Constitution has the right to practice and propagate one's religion as well as an individual's fundamental rights in the same chapter, there is a need to do a rethink on provisions of personal law which violate fundamental rights. He then goes on to make a distinction between the rights and rituals in any religion. He wrote that, Rituals cannot be decided by the law. They remain squarely within the right to practice one's religion. However, fundamental rights belong to all. One section of the society cannot be denied these rights. What affects the right of a citizen – in this case the Muslim wife, cannot be determined by religion.

Needless to say, Triple talaq, as it's known, allows a husband to divorce his wife by repeating the word talaq (divorce) three times in any form, including email or text message. It has been mostly always misused by men and it is the women who had to bear the maximum brunt because of it. Opposition especially Congress is attributing political motives to Centre 's bold moves to ban it and criminalise it even though it is bailable. While rebutting all such charges, Amit Shah who is Union Home Minister rightly points out that, We need to understand that women who fought a long battle against triple talaq didn't have any political motive.

They were normal women who showed extreme courage to fight against injustices they were subjected to. They were determined to put an end to this practice and finally won the battle in the country's highest court. By legislating a triple talaq our government has given a statutory backing to their battle. After all, lawmakers and political parties are duty bound to give voice and right direction to such fights. Opposition's argument questioning the need for law applicable only to Muslim society is also baseless. Independent India has seen enactment of laws aimed at reforming entrenched practices in other communities.

Hindu Marriage Act, Christian Marriage Act, and laws to ban child marriage and dowry are examples of such interventions. Those engaging in opportunistic, narrow political arguments refuse to acknowledge these. Those who question making triple talaq a criminal offence conveniently ignore that several other practices related to Hindu society are considered criminal offence and attract severe punishment. Why no brouhaha is made for them similarly? This leaves us in no doubt that all opposition is because of vote bank politics.

To put things in perspective, it is most heartening to note that The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019 better known as the Triple Talaq Bill finally got President Ram Nath Kovind's assent on August 1, 2019. Hence it has now become a law which shall be binding on Muslims. This is no less than a boon for Muslim women who earlier were subjected to the mercy of the whims and fancies of her husband who could dump her whenever he wanted.

As it turned out, it must be mentioned here that with this assent of President, this historic Bill has replaced the triple talaq ordinance promulgated in February 2019. It was on July 25 that Lok Sabha passed this historic Bill with 303 votes in favour and 82 against. It was on July 30, 2019 that in the 245-member Upper House that is Rajya Sabha voted in favour of the Bill and 84 opposed it while 62 members stayed away by either walking out or abstaining or being absent.

Let me say this on record: It is because of this 62 members of Rajya Sabha who either walked out in the name of formal protest or abstained from voting or remained absent that this historic Bill could see the light of the day. Centre did not have enough members in Rajya Sabha to ensure that it get passed even though it had comfortable majority in Lok Sabha. But these 62 members decided to lend their support indirectly by not voting against the Bill by either remaining absent or staging a walk out or abstained from voting. All Muslim women must remain grateful to these 62 MPs also apart from Centre. There can be no denying or disputing it.

It is most heartening to note that the triple talaq bill has been finally outlawed. But its passage has been far from smooth. The ruling dispensation that is NDA led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad showed a steely resolve, firm determination and grit to make sure that women get their basic rights and those men who insult them by resorting to triple talaq are not able to escape the long arms of the law.

It took three attempts to make sure that ultimately it becomes a law. Head of IMC (Ittehad Millat Council) – Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan said that instead of opposing Triple Talaq Bill we should look at it from the viewpoint of a sister and daughter and it will protect them totally from harassment. He also rightly said this work should have been done by us but we didn't do so Allah made Prime M inister Narendra Modi to do this. He rightly pointed out that, In Islam triple talaq is criminalized since 1400 years and it was Khalifa-e-Waqt Hazrat Umar Farooq who had done this. The punishment is not as much as the Bani-e-Islam had expressed anger. Even Prophet Mohammad had expressed his anger at it. Very rightly said.

Kudos to the Centre for taking such a historic initiative. It left no stone unturned to make sure that more and more members from different parties support this historic triple talaq bill to ensure that women don't keep on suffering endlessly in silence as has been happening since past 72 years.

Jawaharlal Nehru had the guts to usher in reforms in Hindu law and Hindu Marriage Act 1955 was passed and he very rightly ensured that Hindus who both male and female could marry as many as they want earlier were restricted to just one and if they violated they could be punished for a term of seven years for which Hindus must always be grateful to him and should salute him as it is because of this that the population has been controlled to a very large extent. But he did not do anything to ensure that polygamy is similarly banned among Muslims also which would have benefited them also and their population could have been brought under control. However, now PM Narendra Modi has done to Muslims what Jawaharlal Nehru could never do to ensure that Muslim women benefits by making sure that triple talaq bill gets passed in Parliament and finally becomes a law.

As things stand, this Triple Talaq Bill has been a bone of contention and a point of friction between the Narendra Modi led NDA government and the Opposition since December 2017, when the government first tabled this historic legislation in the Lok Sabha. The Bill followed a Supreme Court judgment famously known as Shayara Bano case and titled as Shayara Bano Vs Union of India & Ors. It was in this landmark case that the Supreme Court in a 3:2 majority verdict struck down the age-old regressive and abominable practice under which a Muslim man could divorce his wife by uttering the word talaq thrice in one sitting and declared it as void and illegal.

Be it noted, minutes after the vote, Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted that by abolishing triple talaq, Parliament corrects a historical wrong done to Muslim women. As many as eight Congress members were absent during the vote in Rajya Sabha. Janata Dal (U) and the AIADMK walked out. Also absent were high profile Opposition leaders like the NCP's Sharad Pawar and Praful Patel thus lending their indirect support to this historic Bill.

It must be pointed out here that as many as 22 Muslim countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh – or their provinces have abolished triple talaq either explicitly or implicitly. The list includes Turkey and Cyprus, which have adopted secular family laws; Tunisia and Algeria and the Malaysian state of Sarawak, which do not recognize a divorce pronounced outside a court of law; and Iran, where triple talaq doesn't have validity under its Shia law. Instant talaq is also banned in Algeria, Jordon, Egypt, Iraq, Brunei, the UAE, Indonesia, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Kuwait.

It was way back in 1961 that Pakistan had abolished triple talaq. It also deserves mention that Sri Lanka's Marriage and Divorce (Muslim) Act, 1951, as amended up to 2006, doesn't recognize instant divorce. This is because the law requires a husband wishing to divorce his wife to give notice of his intention to a Qazi (Islamic Judge) who should attempt reconciliation between the couples over the next 30 days. It is only then after all this that the husband can give talaq to his wife and that too in the presence of the Qazi and two witnesses. But what we see in India is that triple talaq is given from telephone or even email which is most reprehensible as it degrades and demolishes the unique identity of women and subjects her to the whims and fancies of men alone. Describing the practice of triple talaq as barbaric and inhuman, Ravi Shankar Prasad rightly pointed out that nearly 22 countries have regulated triple talaq but gender justice was given a complete go-by in a secular country like India because of blatant vote bank politics.

It cannot be lost on us that Ravi Shankar Prasad who is Union Law Minister while hailing the passage of the Triple Talaq Bill pointed out emphatically that, Finally, Parliament has passed the Triple Talaq Bill after three attempts. The kind of jubilation it has caused across the country, barring conservative elements, indicates how it is a proud moment for India. Our country is transforming and the women of India feel empowered. Triple talaq has never been sanctioned in Islamic scriptures. During the debate in Parliament, I quoted a very authoritative book on Islamic laws from an eminent jurist, Amir Ali, wherein Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has been quoted as disapproving of it in the strongest possible terms, and, forcing one of his disciples who had given triple talaq to his wife to accept her again. Despite disapproval from the highest quarters in Islam, and the fact that many Muslim countries following sharia laws also chose to reform it one way or another – including making it penal in many cases – it took more than 70 years in India to not only delegitimise this curse, but also provide for penal consequences. Regrettably, this shows the hold the communal and conservative elements continue to exercise over the country's polity.

What's more, Ravi Shankar Prasad further points out with full zeal that, Today, I need to salute great women like Shayara Bano and Ishrat Jehan and many others who went to the Supreme Court in 2013 challenging this pernicious practice. When the NDA government came to power in 2014, the Prime Minister boldly directed me to stand firmly with these women and support their cause. He also lamented that, After the Supreme Court judgment set aside triple talaq, many of us had thought that now this practice will come to an end. However, it continued unabated, even on the flimsiest of grounds. I had shared before Parliament, a large number of cases that we could gather from the media and other reports, where it was revealed how helpless women (75 percent of the victims are poor) were driven out by uttering talaq-talaq-talaq, irrevocably annulling the marriage.

Let me say this on record: What a complete mockery does this make of women. Should it be allowed to permit under any circumstances? Certainly not. If it was not made a penal offence then certainly it would not serve as a adequate deterrent. The worst sufferers in such case would have been none other than women herself.

It also cannot be lost on us that many opposition parties have opposed this historic Bill on the ground that it criminalizes the triple talaq and this will break marriages more quickly. What they very conveniently forget is that even Hindus earlier could marry as many as they wanted both men and women but it was outlawed and they were made liable to be punished under Section 494 of IPC for imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Then why so much of brouhaha for a three year bailable jail term for Muslims now?

It is a no brainer that to prevent this and taking on board such valid concerns, Ravi Shankar Prasad points out rightly that, When we framed the law we took on board some of the legitimate concerns, namely: The FIR must be filed by the victim/wife or her relations, by blood or marriage, to prevent abuse, and, it must be compoundable. The provision of bail was specifically added, but after hearing the wife. Besides, there are provisions for subsistence allowance and custody of minor to the wife. It was a very simple and straight legal framework, and yet, the Congress took a very negative stand that it should not be made penal at all. Therefore, while formally opposing triple talaq Bill, the Congress was insisting upon a law whereby this curse could go unabated for want of any deterrence. Very rightly said. How can this be permitted?

It would be fair to ask: if the law was not made penal, would it have served its desired purpose of protecting Muslim women from being subjected to arbitrary divorces? It goes without saying that certainly not. It would have been toothless and the offence against women would have continued unabated as rightly pointed out by the Law Minister.

Most importantly, noted Islamic scholar and former Union Minister in late PM Rajiv Gandhi's Cabinet – Arif Mohammad Khan very rightly sums up by saying that, This is a very positive step taken by the Government. It has performed its constitutional duty. It was an obligation of the government to ensure that the Supreme Court (SC) judgment is followed in letter and spirit. Unless some penal provision is incorporated or it is made a punishable offence, the law is not respected. The malpractice of triple talaq has its roots in history. In India, the Supreme Court held triple talaq unlawful on two counts. One, it is arbitrary. Second, it is part of the religious law. The aprties defending this malpractice also admitted in their affidavit that it is 'Haram' (prohibited), and it is 'bidat' (innovative practice), which is not part of the original scheme. They said it is sinful but legally permissible – bad in religion but good in law. On it, the SC judgement said that this is unimaginable that something in a religious law can be 'bad in religion and good in law'. If something is bad in religion then it must be bad in religious law also.

While lambasting the Opposition leaders for criticizing it, Arif Mohammad Khan minced no words in saying that, If the parties like the Congress and AIMIM feel that an act which is Haram and sinful is part of the Muslim identity, then I can only feel sorry about it and I would say it is highly insulting to every Muslim. He also condemned those who say it is an attack on the Muslim identity saying that, I find this language and these assertions absolutely insulting for the Muslims, because the triple talaq, according to the defenders of the practice also, is prohibited and sinful.

About Nikah Halala, Arif Mohammad Khan said that, I think Halala is a related issue. Once triple talaq comes to an end, Halala will die its natural death. About polygamy, he said that, Though I am not a practicing lawyer, I argued in the SC against triple talaq. And, I intend to do the same, when the polygamy issue is taken up. Based on my studies of the Quran, I am convinced that polygamy is as untenable as triple talaq and has very weak ground.

The Quran clearly directs to 'marry those among you who are single'. When the scripture is saying, 'marry one who is single', then why should she marry a man who already has a wife? I am very sure that it will also be outlawed. I am of the opinion that why should the government wait for the SC. The Legislature should initiate the process.

It must be pointed out that Zakia Soman who is co-founder of Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan has also hailed the outlawing of triple talaq by observing that, The passage of the Triple Talaq Bill is a welcome development. Although this has been long overdue and Muslim women have been steadfastly demanding it for many years now, this is a historic step forward in the movement for gender justice by ordinary women.

To conclude, in the 21st century why should women not have the same rights as men? Why should women suffer at the hands of men as he likes, whenever he likes, wherever he like and how he likes without any hindrance whatsoever? Why when polygamy was banned among Hindus in 1955 has it not been banned among Muslims 54 years later in 2019? It is for Centre to answer. Hindus have gained as the population has come under control but Muslims still are suffering because of it not being outlawed. It must take the great initiative in this direction also as rightly pointed out by Arif Mohammad Khan. Let's hope so.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Abortion (or miscarriage) may occur spontaneously, in which case it is of no interest to the criminal law; or it may be deliberately induced, when it is a serious crime
To my understanding the MTP Act 1971 allows for abortions only under the following conditions:
Annulment of marriage: An annulment case can be initiated by either the husband or the wife in the marriage
Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made thereunder, a petition for divorce may be presented to the District Court by both the parties together on the ground that they have been living separately
The people of India belong to different religions and faiths. They are governed by different sets of personal laws in respect of matters relating to family affairs, i.e., marriage, divorce, succession.
India a country of cultural values and rituals, ceremonies cannot afford to plunge into western society. But since growing economy and people getting more and more aware
The people of India belong to different religions and faiths. They are governed by different sets of personal laws in respect of matters relating to family affairs, i.e., marriage, divorce, succession.
Conditions relating to solemnization of foreign marriages.-A marriage between parties one of whom at least is a citizen of India may be solemnized under this Act by or before a Marriage Officer in a foreign country, if, at the time of the marriage, the following conditions are fulfilled
Here is a list of stages in a Contest Divorce Proceedings
Your fitness as a parent goes to be questioned in any custody dispute. Do not offer your spouse equivalent any facts
The people of India belong to different religions and faiths. They are governed by different sets of personal laws in respect of matters relating to family affairs,
It has to be stated at the very outset that in a landmark judgment with far reaching consequences, the Supreme Court on May 6, 2018 in Nandkumar & Anr v The State of Kerala & Ors in Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2018 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4488 of 2017
The Bombay High Court in Neelam Choudhary V/s UOI in Writ Petition while refusing a plea seeking termination of pregnancy held that matrimonial discord cannot be considered as a reason for permitting termination of pregnancy by invoking provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Mahadevappa v Karnataka upheld the conviction of a man accused of dowry death, relying largely on the evidence of his deceased wife's parents and relatives. The Apex Court Bench also upheld the High Court finding that this was a case of homicidal death and not a case of accidental death.
Section 21, which purports to provide for legitimacy of children of annulled marriages, appears to be productive of arbitrary and incongruous results when compared to the analogous provisions of the Hindu marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act.
Judicial Separation under section 22 of Divorce Act and Husband not entitled to inherit wife’s property, wife not disentitled
Before the enactment of this Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, a Muslim woman, who was divorced by or from her husband, was granted a right to livelihood from her quondam husband in the shape of maintenance under the provisions of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure until she remarried.
Complete guidelines on Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent section 10A - Christian Divorce in India
Sunil Kumar vs J&K held in no uncertain terms that an educated woman is supposed to be fully aware of consequences of having sex with a man before marriage. She cannot voluntarily first have sex with her own free will and later term it as rape or a sexual assault on her..
For NRIs, marriage registration is compulsory. The registration period for non-resident’s marriage is 30 days from the day of solemnization. It will be a precautionary measure to lessen the cases of abandoned wives and domestic violence by the non-residents. In case, the marriage remains unregistered, the spouses can be litigated.
There are many NRIs who are married, but still their certificate shows single status. The Registration of Marriage of Non-Residents bill has been passed.
Rupali Devi v State of Uttar Pradesh has laid down categorically that women can file matrimonial cases, including criminal matters pertaining to cruelty from the place where they have taken shelter after leaving or being driven out of their matrimonial home.
The UK citizen has decided to marry with a girl from India. Where can he collect from the marriage certificate in India? Is unmarried certificate required?
Sheenu Mahendru vs Sangeeta and Soniya that the persistent efforts of a wife to compel her husband to get separated from his mother constitute an act of cruelty. The Division Bench thus allowed the appeal of a husband who had sought divorce on the ground of cruelty by wife.
Ravinder Yadav Vs Padmini @ Payal has categorically and convincingly held that mere aggressive behaviour and sadness of mood of wife does not mean that the wife is spoiling the atmosphere of her matrimonial home.
To Protect the rights of married Muslim women and to prohibit divorce by pronouncing to talaq by their husbands and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Seventieth Year of the Republic of India as follows
SG Vs RKG held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage alone cannot be a ground of divorce and can only be considered as a circumstance by the Court if it is merged with cruelty.
The NRI Marriage Act is proposed to be amended at the beginning of this year. The propositions were tabled while keeping the surging cases of abandoning wives by non-residents of India.
Girish Singh Vs The State of Uttarakhand the Supreme Court has observed that the conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code can be made only if the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives which must be for or in connection with any demand for dowry, soon before her death.
basic rights and those men who insult them by resorting to triple talaq are not able to escape the long arms of the law. It took three attempts to make sure that ultimately it becomes a law.
Whether where wife had been responsible for her atrocious allegations, actions and behaviour, same amounted to cruelty to husband? and the Hon'ble court held Yes.
The certificate of no marriage determines that its bearer is unmarried and in a capacity to solemnize marriage with anyone. India has SDM office, MEA and embassy to get it attested. The person can visit the notary officer for getting its affidavit first, showing all authentic proves of birth, address and citizenship.
R Srinivas Kumar v. R Shametha Can exercise its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for dissolution of a marriage, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which the divorce could be granted.
Smt. Surbhi Trivedi Vs. Gaurav Trivedi held that in a matrimonial dispute, if gender of one of the parties is questioned by the other party, the court may direct such a party to undergo medical examination and the plea of violation of privacy shall not be tenable
When summons are served upon you as a respondent in any petition, you may yourself appear before the concerned Court. You may also appear by a pleader or Advocate, whom you should properly instruct so that he is able to answer all material questions before the Court.
The non-availability of birth certificate in India is one of the lesser known documents that could be an alternative to apply for the birth certificate even after 30 years of the age.
Even in the best family circumstances, with pristine intentions, preparing for adversity is a wise choice when separation becomes eminent.
Gurjit Singh vs Punjab the accused cannot be automatically held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC by employing the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act.
It must be stated forthright that the demand of money for any purpose from the wife can be termed as demand for dowry. The husband would be liable in such cases for demanding dowry even though it may not seem like dowry.
Sanjivani Ramchandra Kondalkar v/s Ramchandra Bhimrao Kondalkar that if allegations of adultery are proved against the wife in a marriage, she is not entitled to maintenance. A wife is entitled to claim maintenance only if she is able to prove that all the allegations of adultery are wrong.
Divorce by Mutual Consent - Divorce petition by husband on adultery - Divorce Petition filed within few days of marriage - Divorce Petition-Provisions of mutatis mutandis,applies and when Can Divorced persons re-marry
Even though most people want things to go well, not everything is always perfect in our families. And like charity, even conflict begins at home.
Soumitra Kumar Nahar v/s Parul Naharthat the parental responsibility of the couple does not end even if there is a breakdown of marriage. It is the child who always suffer immeasurably and invaluably due to the ego clashes of the couple! sought to affix responsibility on the parents which they owe towards the child
Can you get legally married in Spain? Both religious weddings and Civil ceremonies are legally recognized as par Spainish law. Infact in 2005 Sex marriage has been legalized.
Article examines need for divorce by mutual consent and explores evolution of divorce. Application of consent theory under Hindu law. How has the theory been applied in other civil and common law countries. Conclusion- How to evolve the consent theory further?
Getting a divorce can be one of the most difficult decisions that you ever take in your life. Apart from the sentiments involved, there is typically a load of legal and financial implications for both the parties, which unless amicably settled can lead to a messy legal situation apart from details of your personal life coming into the public domain
Top