Triple talaq: Personal laws can't be rewritten, Muslim board tells SC

September 3, 2016

New Delhi, Sep 3: The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Friday told the Supreme Court that “personal laws cannot be re-written in the name of social reforms.”

talaq3

Submitting its response in connection with the ongoing matter on the triple talaq' issue, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board said, “Personal laws cannot be challenged as violative of Part III of the Constitution.”

“When serious discords develop in a marriage and husband wants to get rid of wife, legal compulsions and time consuming judicial process….in extreme cases husband may resort to illegal criminal ways of getting rid of her by murdering her. In such situations Triple Talaq is a better recourse,” AIMPLB told the apex court.

“Marriage is a contract in which both parties are not physically equal. Male is stronger and female is a weaker sex. Securing separation through court takes a long time deters prospects of remarriage,” it added.

The AIMPLB further said that polygamy as a social practice is not for gratifying men's lust, but it is a social need.

“Muslim women have right to divorce under Khula practice. Issues of Muslim Personal Law are raised in the Supreme Court are for Parliament for decide. The Uniform Civil code is a directive principle and not enforceable. The personal laws are protected by Article 25, 26 and 29 of the Constitution as they are acts done in pursuance of a religion,” it added.

The apex court had last week issued notice to the Central Government on the plea of a Muslim woman challenging the Constitutional validity of triple talaq' to end a marriage.

The petitioner Ishrat Jahan has sought a declaration from the apex court, saying that Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, was unconstitutional as it violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 21 (life) and 25 (religion) of the Constitution.

In her petition, Jahan has asked whether an arbitrary and unilateral divorce through triple talaq can deprive the wife of her rights in her matrimonial home as also her right to have the custody of her children.

A batch of petitions is being heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and notices have already been issued to the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and others.

However, this is not the first such type of petition that has been presented before the Supreme Court as Uttarakhand-based Shayara Banu and the Rashtrawadi Muslim Mahila Sangh through its president Farah Faiz have raised similar queries.

On July 29, the apex court had favoured a wider debate on the petitions challenging the validity of triple talaq.

All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board (AIMWPLB) president Shaista Ambar has demanded abolishing of the triple talaq system.

Talaq-e-bidat is a Muslim man divorcing his wife by pronouncing the word “talaq” more than once in a single tuhr (the period between two menstruations) or in a tuhr after coitus or pronouncing an irrevocable instantaneous divorce at one go (unilateral triple-talaq).

The Centre has set up a high-level committee to review the status of women in India and according to reports has recommended a ban on the practice of oral, unilateral and triple talaq (divorce) and polygamy.

Comments

SK
 - 
Monday, 5 Sep 2016

The Muslim Personal Law board is putting up silly / childish / stupid arguements as follows

\ In extreme cases husband may resort to illegal criminal ways of getting rid of her by killing her \".
If that happens, that is good, The innocent wife will go to Jannah and the criminal husband will go to jail and Hell.

The million dollar question is ....why the husband can not give the talaqs step by step as ordained by Quran ... and wait for 9 months instead of telling 3 talaqs at a time .??????????"

SK
 - 
Sunday, 4 Sep 2016

Shaji, further to my previous question, kindly note that , no one is opposing the Personal Law... It is because of the wrong practice by Muslim Husbands, Islam is getting a bad name.... Why the Husbands are in a hurry to give three talaqs at a time.. which is not allowed in Quran .... Why cant the greedy husbands give the Talaq step by step..... wait for three months after the first Talak, wait another 3 months after the second Talak, So within 8 -9 months , the process of Talak will be over and the women can not complaint... Why phones, E.mails, messages , skypes are used to give talak.....It is the greedy and name sake husbands, who have given a chance to these ladies to go to courts.... If the husbands BEHAVE properly , the chances of differences are less.... and unfortunately some greedy moulanas are also supporting these erring husbands .... Just think, if it happens to your sisters and daughters, then you will understand the PAIN and wrongful act...

SK
 - 
Sunday, 4 Sep 2016

Mr Shaji..... Kindly tell what the Quran tells about Talaq and how it was practised during the time of Prophet ( PBUH )

SHAJI
 - 
Sunday, 4 Sep 2016

Why the hate mongers are inserting their nose in personal matter of Muslims. Few moderate muslims are behind this agitation as they dont want to follow islam. In this case why are they call themselves Muslims. They are free to follow any religion. None is forcing these hypocrytes to be in Islam. Tomorrow these hypocrytes (Munafiqs) will ask to ban Masjids / prayers / fastings etc as they are not following it and face it hard to observe it. Supreme court should not accept such requestes which is only a waste of time of Court. Few sangh partivar terrorists and hate mongers are supporting these hypocrites. Why media is showing hand count hypocrite wormen who want changes in personal law whereas yuo will find hudreds of thousand of muslim women who dont want any change in muslim persona law which is based on Quaran plus Hadees and will never be changed.

Shamsir
 - 
Saturday, 3 Sep 2016

No brother its not allowed.when serious discords happens in marriage(its always better to make patience). Husband can go for 1st talaq by keeping two pious negotiator from each side. during that time women should stay at husbands house but they should b away from bed so that through negotiators counselling there is a chance for mind change with in women's first menstrual period. in case problem still continues then he can go for second talaq and same procedure to follow. Initial two talaq are revocable but so in third case it is irrecoverable ... for more information go through mufthi menk's latest 2016 talk in youtube \marriage issue\""

SK
 - 
Saturday, 3 Sep 2016

Manoharji , Before making this comment have you consulted your Father Advani / Modi / Muthalik / Pagodia / Moochwala .......Good luck enjoy the day ....

Manohar
 - 
Saturday, 3 Sep 2016

Ask with your father owaisis he always talk about law everytime to escape the situation now u people are saying that supreme court cant take decision on your personal values.

SK
 - 
Saturday, 3 Sep 2016

Is triple talaq in one time is allowed in Quran / Prophet ( PBUH ) ????

Any one can enlighten ????

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 11,2020

Bengaluru, Jun 11: Within hours after claiming that it has decided to prohibit schools from schools from conducting online classes till Class 7, the Karnataka government has taken a U-turn and said that currently than ban is only till Class 5.

“Karnataka Govt has decided to stop all online classes for LKG, UKG & classes up to 5th std. To extend this up to 7th std is only a suggestion from few cabinet ministers as expressed in an informal discussion and NOT a decision,” tweeted Prime and Secondary Minister Suresh Kumar.

Law Minister J C Madhuswamy earlier today had stated that the decision to ban online classes till 7th standard was taken by the government.  "All of us were of the opinion that there were challenges faced by students studying in rural areas. Hence, we urged the government to extend the ban on online classes till 7 standard," he said

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 19,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 19: Pointing out that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at whim, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to 21 people who were accused by police of involving in violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mangaluru.

Allowing the bail petitions of Ashik and 20 others from Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts, Justice John Michael Cunha said the overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that FIRs were registered under Section 307 of IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.

“In an offence involving a large number of people, the identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. In the present cases, the identity appears to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of the Muslim community. Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before the court showing the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot, armed with deadly weapons,” the judge noted.

In the statement of objections filed by the State Public Prosecutor-I, it was stated that there was a hint of Muslim youths holding protest on December 19, 2019, opposing the implementation of CAA. Prohibitory orders were clamped in that connection. This assertion indicated that the common object of the assembly was to oppose the implementation of CAA and National Register for Citizens (NRC) which, by itself, was not an “unlawful object”, the judge pointed out.

‘Pics show cops throwing stones at crowd’

Justice Cunha also said the material collected by the investigators did not contain any specific evidence regarding the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot. On the other hand, omnibus allegations were made against the Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000, alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by the SPP depicted that hardly any member of the crowd were armed with weapons, except one of them holding a bottle. In none of these photographs, police station or policemen were seen in the vicinity, the judge noted.

“On the other hand, photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones at the crowd. The petitioners have produced copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement made thereon reveals that even though the law required the police to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint made against the police officers making out cognizable offences, the police have failed to register FIRs. This goes to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police,” the judge observed.

In the wake of counter-allegations against the police and in the backdrop of their failure to register FIRs based on complaints lodged by the families of victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication could not be ruled out, the judge said. In these circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties to the mercy of the district administration and police. The records indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to trump up evidence and to deprive the liberties of the petitioners by fabricating evidence. None of the petitioners have any criminal antecedents, the court said.

“The allegations levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. The investigation appears to be malafide and partisan. In the circumstances, in order to protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary to admit them to bail,” the judge said.

The petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody after the anti-CAA protests on charges of being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to the North Police Station in Mangaluru, obstructing the police from discharging their duties and causing damage to public property, etc., on December 19 in violation of the prohibitory orders. They moved the High Court as their bail pleas had been rejected by a sessions court in Dakshina Kannada.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 18,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 18: Veteran actress Kishori Ballal, 82, best known for playing Kaveri Amma in Ashutosh Gowariker’s Swades, passed away on Tuesday. She was suffering from age-related health issues and breathed her last at a Bengaluru hospital.

Kishori, who hailed from Mangaluru, made her debut in Kannada film 'Evalentha Hendathi' in 1960.

In a career spanning five decades, she went on to act in movies like Hani Hani, Kahi and Suryakanthi. A Bharatnatyam exponent, she was also a part of Hindi films like Lafangey Parindey, Ek Alag Mausam and Gair Kanooni.

Kishori Ballal played the role of Kaveri Amma, the nanny of Shah Rukh Khan (Mohan Bhargav) in Swades.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.