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
April 4,2020

New Delhi, Apr 4: The Supreme Court on Friday urged Karnataka and Kerala to amicably resolve their issues concerning a border blockade that has choked the free flow of vehicles carrying essential items and patients in the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Karnataka, which imposed the blockade, justified that its border was sealed to “combat the spread of the pandemic by preventing the movement of people from the bordering districts of Kerala to Karnataka”.

The State had moved the Supreme Court, challenging a Kerala High Court order on April 1 to open the border. Kerala has countered that patients from the State cannot be denied access to health care. Besides, the blockade has severely affected the supply of essential items, from medicines to food, to Kerala.

On Friday, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta urged the States to not confront each other in the midst of an unprecedented public health crisis. Instead, it asked the Chief Secretaries of both States to sit with the Union Health Secretary and iron out a solution. Meanwhile, the apex court urged Kerala not to take any precipitative action based on the High Court order.

The court issued notice to Kerala on the appeal filed by Karnataka, represented by advocate Shubhranshu Padhi. It listed the case for further hearing on April 7.

Karnataka, in its appeal against the High Court order, said the blockade was put in place in the interest of public health. The situation regarding Coronavirus was “really dire”, it said. It warned that opening the blockade would cause a law and order issue as its local population wanted the border to remain sealed.

Karnataka argued that Kerala was the “worst-affected” State in the country with nearly 194 coronavirus cases. In this, Kasaragod, adjoining Karnataka, was the “worst affected” district of Kerala with over a 100 positive cases.

MP’s plea

The court also separately considered a writ petition by Kasaragod MP Rajmohan Unnithan for an order to forthwith open the State border.

The parliamentarian, represented by advocates Haris Beeran and Pallavi Pratap, urged the court to issue an ex-parte stay on the operation of the blockade imposed by Karnataka with its border States.

Mr. Unnithan said Karnataka’s blockade was “ill-planned and dangerous” and had led to loss of lives. Two patients from Kerala, in need of urgent medical care, died after their ambulances were denied entry at the border by the Karnataka authorities. 

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
January 14,2020

Mangaluru, Jan 14: Ace Yakshagana guru Kadri Ramachandra Bhat Yelluru will be awarded the ‘Kundeshwara Samman’ award by Shri Kundeshwara Kshetra, Hirgana, Karkala taluk.

The award will be presented to him in a ceremony on January 21.

“A Yakshagana, ‘Bhargava Vijaya’, with Yakshadhruva Patla Sateesh Shetty will be held on the same day. A Tulu drama, ‘Panoditthundu’, will be staged by Sindhura team. The annual temple festival will be held on January 22,” a press release issued by Cultural Programme Convenor Jitendra Kundeshwara said here on Tuesday.

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 15,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 15: The new Karnataka Minister for Forest Anand Singh on Friday said that he is ready for 'change in the portfolio' as opposition parties are leveling charges against Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa for appointing him, despite having 15 cases registered under Forest Act against him.

"If Chief Minister wants to change my portfolio, I am ready," he added.

Speaking to newsmen here, he said that there are 15 cases pending against him. The Legislator from Vijayanagara in Mine rich Ballari district said anyone can go through the Chargesheets and find out whether there are any direct charges against him. Claiming that the cases against him were 'minor violations', he had earlier linked them to traffic violations by a vehicle owner.

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.