Under Islamic law, the ground for divorce is the impossibility of the spouses to live together, as opposed

to any specific cause (or guilt of a side) for their inability to live together. Islam insists on the
continuation of a marriage and advocates avoiding a breach of the marital contract. Under Islamic law, a
divorce may be granted either by the consent of the parties or by a court order. Each of them has
various impact on the parties in terms of which party must pay alimony and maintenance after the
divorce. Modern reforms in this area have sought to limit the husband's right to talaq and increase the
role of women.

When the term expires, the husband must either return the items or part with them on equitable terms
in the presence of two witnesses. When reconciliatory efforts have failed, a divorce is granted; within a
set time range, two witnesses are necessary, and parties must follow the method outlined in the Quran.
A Hadith reinforced the Quran by stating that, although divorce is permissible, it is "the most hated by
Allah." Doi states, however, that the fundamental principle of Muslim divorce law is that an unsuccessful
marriage should be dissolved to prevent immorality and zina. The Quran has imposed conditions and
responsibilities that act as a strong check on the husband's unilateral power of divorce (as proposed by
Abd al-Ati): the husband must be of age, sane, free from intoxication (jurisprudential views vary) and
external pressure, and have a clear intent to terminate, while the wife must be of age and in a state of
fresh chastity. No interaction during this period. According to Shi'a law, a divorce decree is religiously
forbidden and null and void if certain conditions are not met. Other jurists view abortion as religiously
banned but legally permissible. Sunni schools do not require the presence of the wife or witnesses; but,
if the talaq is contested, witnesses may be required to verify it. (Hinchcliffe) The divorce can be verbal or
written, and any language is permissible (Hamid Ali v. Imtazan) (1872)

HUSBAND'S RIGHT: Talaq is the most prevalent type of divorce, and it is the unilateral sole prerogative
of the husband to do so without the wife's approval or recourse to a court of law (Jeffery) (Hinchcliffe).
Talaq means to loosen or liberate. Islam recognises the absolute authority of a Muslim husband to
divorce his wife unilaterally, without assigning any reason, literally at his whim, even in jest or while
intoxicated, without appeal to the court, and even in the wife's absence. All that is required is that the
spouse recite Talaaq; the manner in which he does so, when he does so, or in what manner he
pronounces it are not crucial. Talaaq may be expressed, implicit, contingent, constructive, or even
delegated among Sunnis. Shias only acknowledge the express and delegated types of talaaq.

TALAQ AL-SUNNAH: Is the most permissible method of divorce (the ahsan form) (Nasir, 1990), in which
the husband announces a single rejection during a period of chastity. The marriage ends after the
conclusion of the trial period. During the idda period (three months or nine if pregnant), he is required
to provide as if there had been no divorce. Always, the door to reconciliation remains open. If the
parties choose to remarry, they are able to do so without entering into an interim marriage. The Ithna'
Asharis Shia sect recognises only this type of divorce as valid. They require a certain vocabulary and two
witnesses. (Ali Nawaz Gardezi v Mohammad Yusuf (1963)). TALAQ AL-SUNNAH: The hasan form typically
results in "greater finality" (Nasr, 1990) as the purpose is to terminate the marriage totally. Three talaqs
are pronounced during three consecutive periods of purity, and only the third talaq can be rescinded.
The divorce becomes irrevocable (Hinchcliffe), and an intervening marriage is necessary for remarriage.
The iddat is said after the third talaq. There is no inheritance between the parties.
According to Abd-al-Ati, TALAQ AL-BIDA is also known as Contra Sunnah Divorce since it is the least
preferred technique. Despite conflicting provisions in the Quran, it is permissible. The custom is
widespread among Sunni Muslims. It is legally valid, but morally repugnant. The rationale for its
legitimacy is 'Umar's discretion,' which held husbands responsible for imprudent statements. Although it
is questionable whether the same remains true in the present day. No reconciliation is possible, and an
intervening marriage is required for remarriage. In the majority of Muslim nations today, a triple talaq is
only effective as a single talaq. All rejections prior to the third are reversible. In Jordan and India
(Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) and The Muslim Women (Protection of Marriage Rights) Act
2019), talaq al-bida is no longer recognised. Is a single talaq that occurs when a husband divorces his
wife during her menstrual flow (divorce is revocable); definitive statement follows a single talaq; or
divorce is suspended on a condition that can also be in the wife's favour (second marriage prohibited).
Regrettably, only Tunisia has enacted legislation making divorce by the husband a legal procedure.
(Hinchcliffe). Iran has also eliminated the husband's unilateral ability to divorce his wife, as a court order
is required.

In addition, the Divorce Reform Act of 1992 stipulates that if reconciliation is not feasible, the husband is
required to pay alimony and spousal support in full, which provides women with additional security.

In Pakistan, S.7 MFLO 1961 mandates that a man seeking a divorce (any type of talaq) must submit a
written request to the Council and provide a copy to his wife. The divorce is invalid without this (Ali
Nawaz Gardezi v. Muhammad Yusuf, 1963). Once the idda period begins, reconciliation attempts will be
made. This will result in a divorce (Fahmida Bibi v. Mukhtar Ahmad, 1972). The Federal Shariat Court,
however, ruled that section 7(3) is invalid. A wife enters iddat when the talaq is pronounced, not when
she is issued notice (Allah Rakha v Federation of Pakistan) It was also viewed as a risk to women who
may be subject to litigation if they marry after the Iddat period but before the period specified in section
7. (3). As of March 31, 2000, a divorce will be valid even if no notice has been given, however penalties
will remain in effect.
It is believed that a restrictive approach is taken towards the wife's right to divorce (particularly under
Hanafi law), as there are certain types: 1. it is either delegated to her by her husband (Carroll, 1982); 2.
through an offer and his subsequent acceptance (Khul); or 3. through judicial recission (Faskh).

KHULA:

Khula is ended with the Quran-referenced offer and acceptance (2:229). A wife may propose to pay her
husband a set quantity (often the amount of her dower (Hinchcliffe)) in exchange for a divorce, or a
husband may offer to divorce in exchange for compensation. All schools of law, with the exception of
the Maliki, hold that khula can only be modified via mutual consent (mubaraat), and neither side is
required to pay the other. Khul is irrevocable and remarriage is permitted without an intervening
marriage. The right to talaq is unconditional, however a wife still requires her husband's approval. As
compensation, any amount may be agreed upon. This is susceptible to misuse, as husbands might
request compensation in excess of the dower, making divorce harder for the wife.

JUDICIAL KHULA: The Maliki school (and now others) recognise a judicial khula — a court-granted
divorce – and are lenient in that women can get a divorce on the basis of prejudice (dhrar). The Talaq
right of the spouse is exercised by a Qadi. If a wife cannot establish grounds for divorce, the court
functions as an arbitrator. Two arbitrators (one family member from each side) are selected to facilitate
reconciliation between the parties. If they are unsuccessful, evidence will be presented to determine
who is largely at fault. If the husband is, an irrevocable talaq will be pronounced. However, if the wife is,
the marriage will end upon payment of a settlement. In other schools of law, arbitrators serve as
peacemakers. According to Welchmann, khul is based on the notion of mutual consent between
spouses. Juidical khul is appealing because women can unilaterally insist on a divorce in Faskh in the
absence of established judicial grounds. This may be comparable to the husband's Talaq power. Under
faskh, however, a successful wife is not required to pay recompense. Reforms in the present day
acknowledge judicial khul. Examples include Egypt and Algeria. In Algeria and Qatar, recompense to the
husband is restricted (often, only the dower must be returned). Khul is preferred since the cost of
compensation can be expensive, and Faskh is difficult to acquire because a clear reason must be
demonstrated. Therefore, it is suggested that this section of law must be revised so that women receive
more protection or more grounds are recognised under Faskh.
FASKH: Is the legal annulment of a marriage (Nasir, 1990). A contract's terminating party cannot be
deemed in breach (Hinchcliffe). A woman must seek the court for a divorce by court order and provide
justification for the dissolution. The Shafi'i school permits the court to issue a decree if the husband
wilfully refuses to support his wife. Ithna Asharis permit it if the spouse is sterile. According to Tayyibji
(1968), the Hanafi school is the most stringent because the only justification is the husband's inability to
complete the marriage. Some nations have taken a reformist stance by granting women the legal right
to divorce. Under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act of 1939, a woman in Pakistan may file for
divorce on any of the nine listed grounds. Additionally, the wife may be able to begin the divorce on her
own.

SOUTH ASIAN LAWS PAKISTAN In accordance with classical Hanafi law, the wife cannot insist on
acquiring a khul unless the husband pronounces a talaq, in which case it is a mutual agreement. Lucy
Carroll asserts that Hanafi nations such as Pakistan have attempted to ease the plight of unprotected
Muslim women by granting recourse to legal divorce. In the subcontinent, the Dissolution of Muslim
Marriages Act of 1939 is in effect.

S2 stipulates that a woman may obtain a divorce for the following reasons: whereabouts unknown,
failure to furnish maintenance, imprisonment, impotence, insanity, child marriage, and cruelty (may
include taking of a second wife in some countries). However, as pointed out by Lucy Carol, there are
several difficulties with this: Protracted litigation; the courts' lack of compassion for women; the
necessity of proving matrimonial guilt. The issue is the high burden of proof the woman was required to
meet when she filed for divorce based on one or more of the permissible reasons under the DMMA. Due
of the difficulty of proving these grounds, wives typically opt for judicial khul. In Sayeeda Khanam, Chief
Justice Cornelius noted judicial khul' is generally pled as an additional remedy should the woman fail in
her first claim for divorce under the DMMA. These are distinct and mutually exclusive forms of relief.
Balqis Fatima v. Qureshi – The court ruled that a Muslim wife may request a khul if it is convinced that
the marriage has ended and the dower will be returned. The judge referred to Sayeeda Khanam and
determined that the study of the pertinent sources was insufficient. "...The wife's right cannot be
defeated." The judge did impose restrictions on khul's right, stating that she "cannot have a decree for
every passing whim..." The most important divorce case is Khurshid Bibi v. Muhammad. The Supreme
Court held a liberal position. The judges distinguished between a khul and talaq, holding that the former
does not grant the Husband the ability to reclaim his Wife, while the latter allows him to rescind his
proclamation prior to the conclusion of the iddat. According to Hinchcliffe (1968), the ruling of the
Supreme Court rendered the wife more equal in requesting a divorce, which was to be applauded. The
case resulted in a substantial shift to divorce law at the time and in modern times. As the court did in
Naseem Aktar v. Mohammad, Hinchcliffe warned that the spouse will use khul to avoid postponed
dower and gain compensation. In Aurangzeb v. Gulnaz, it was established that even if the woman
refused to return the dower, the marriage would still be dissolved if the family court determined that
"the parties could not remain within God's limits." In addition, Pakistan does not offer post-divorce
maintenance, unlike the majority of Middle Eastern nations who have adopted this progressive measure
(UAE, Kuwait).

BANGLADESH Sirajul Islam v. Helena Begum (1996) - Syed J.R. Mudassir Hussain J. In the unlikely event
that the H does not give notice of talaq pursuant to section 7 of the MFLO after repudiating his W, the
divorce itself will not be invalidated, the court said. The fact that he does not give notice practically
renders the purpose of the clause moot due to the fact that his wife detests him.