INDEX

TOPICS PAGE NO

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 1

INTRODUCTION 2

PROBLEMS 2-3

CASE LAW 3-5

1. Mohd Ahmad khan vs Shah Bano

2. Shayara Bano vs UOI 5-7

CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION 7-8

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my special thanks to our professor Mr./Mrs.
MANDEEP KAUR ( for his/her time and efforts he/she provided
throughout the year. Your useful advice and suggestions were really
helpful to me during the project's completion. In this aspect, I am eternally
grateful to you.
Also, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my Friends &
supporters, without them it could not have been done effectively in such
a short period of time. I cannot forget their love and support.
A project is a bridge between theoretical and practical learning and with
this thinking I worked on the project and made it successful due to timely
support and efforts of all who helped me.
Q.) A Muslim man Mohd. Ahad under grave and sudden provocation announces triple
talaq to his wife Shabnam. What is the status of their marriage according to Muslim law?
Mention landmark judgment to prove your statement.

Introduction

In Muslim law, the marriage can be dissolved through a process known as triple talaq, in which
the husband can grant his wife a divorce by saying talaq three times in a row. It is not necessary
for the wife to be there; a valid excuse is not necessary. Under Muslim law, the husband's rejection
of the union is referred to as "Talaq." Since ancient times, triple Talaq has been a common practice
in India. Historically, the Sharia—as understood by conventional Islamic jurisprudence—
governed divorce laws, albeit they varied based on the legal school. Family law was codified in
modern times as personal status law. They continued to fall under the purview of Islamic law in
general, but the state took over the regulation of divorce laws from traditional jurists. Triple talaq
is a 1400-year-old Sunni Islam custom. Both the Quran and Sharia law make no mention of this.
According to the Qur'an, marriage is meant to last forever. The ideal connection between spouses
should be founded on love, and major life decisions for both spouses should be decided upon by
mutual consent.1

The community is called upon to step in by appointing arbiters from two families to seek
reconciliation. The Quran enables and recommends the spouse end the marriage when marital
harmony cannot be achieved, but this decision is not to be taken lightly. The Quran establishes two
additional ways to prevent hasty divorces. First, it mandates two waiting periods of three months
before the divorce is final to give the husband time to reconsider his choice. Second, it grants a
man who swears not to have sexual relations with his wife—which would automatically result in
divorce—a four-month window to break that oath. Although some patriarchal customs and others
persisted and thrived in the following centuries, the Quran altered the gender disparity of divorce
practices that were prevalent in pre-Islamic Arabia. Before Islam, divorce in the Arab world was

1
Triple Talaq, available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-26-triple-talaq.html (last visited on 1st
April, 2023).
controlled by unwritten customary law that varied by region and tribe and was enforced according
to the will of the parties concerned.2

Problems

➢ NO SECURITY OF MARRIAGE: Due to the triple talaq concept no women have any
security in their marriage. She can get divorced at any time.
➢ NO MAINTENANCE: If the husband dissolved their marriage he need not provide any
maintenance to her wife under Muslim Law. A wife cannot seek any maintenance under
Muslim law.
➢ NO REASONABLENESS REQUIRED: The husband need not provide any reason for
why he is divorcing her wife under Muslim Law. Without any justified reason, it seems
like punishment to women.
➢ VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN:
• Right to Equality (Article 14):- Equals should be treated equally but here in this
case women are not treated equally.
• Right to Life (Article 21):- It is also hampering right to life, it is affecting the
dignity and personal liberty of the women.

Case Laws

1) MOHD AHMAD KHAN VS SHAH BANO, AIR 1985 SC (3) 844

Introduction

In a significant legal case known as Mohd. Ahmad Khan V/S. Shah Bano Begum, the issue of
"Triple Talaq Judgment" was addressed. Usually, this case is referred to as the "Shah Bano
Case." In India, it is regarded as a very contentious and challenging legal case. This litigation
has proven to be a turning point in the fight for Muslim women's independence and rights. The
entire story revolves around Shah Bano's daring and heroic struggle against the Triple Talaq
regime. Instead of writing a history or a novel about a repressed woman, she chose to suffer
the humiliation of her husband and the community. She chose, despite the dire circumstances
she found herself in, to struggle against her husband and the world that was overwhelmingly

2
Triple Talaq and its Essential in Islam, available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-630-triple-
talaq-and-its-essential-in-islam.html (last visited on 1st April, 2023).
 on her husband's side. Above all, she heroically chose to fight against the male-dominated
society. She struggled against the Triple Talaq system, and in the end her efforts were not in
vain; she was able to get what she wanted and has permanently changed the system.3

Facts of the Case

• Shah Bano married Mohd. Mohammad Khan, a well-known attorney in Indore, in 1932.
• They had 3 sons and 2 daughters, making a total of 5 kids.
• After 14 years. Shah Bano's husband afterwards married a younger woman.
• Shah Bano was disowned by her husband in 1975 when she was 62 years old and was
forced to leave her marital house with her children.4
• After being expelled by her husband from their marital residence in April 1978, she filed
an appeal in front of the Indore judicial magistrate in accordance with Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).5
• Shah Bano filed this lawsuit in 1978 as a result of her husband's abandonment of the
maintenance of Rs. 200 per month that he had promised to provide.
• A divorced wife who hasn't remarried who is ignored by her husband and has no source of
income is entitled to maintenance.6
• By saying or expressing "Triple Talaq and it was irrevocable," he granted his wife Shah
Bano a divorce in November 1978.
• The main justification or grounds for the divorce was the quarrel or argument between
Shah Bano's children and her husband's second wife.
• After he issued an irreversible Triple Talaq, he took precautions to ensure that he would
not be obligated to pay her maintenance or alimony because she had lost her status as her
legal wife as a result of the divorce.

3
Case Analysis- Mohd Ahmad khan vs Shah Bano Begum, available at:
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-216-case-analysis-mohd-ahmad-khan-v-s-shah-bano-begum.html
(last visited on 1st April, 2023)
4
Id. at 3
5
Triple Talaq Case (Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs Shah Bano Begum) (Judgment) [1985] SC 844
6
Supra note 3 at 2
 • The local court (magistrate's court) ordered Mohd. Ahmad to pay Shah Bano Rs. 25 per
month as maintenance.7
• In addition to this, Shah Bano requested in July 1908 that the maintenance amount be
changed to Rs. 179 per month in a petition to the High Court of M.P.
• Shah Bano's precedent petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the Madhya Pradesh High
Court's decision.
• Husband's main defence after the divorce is that he cannot maintain any kind of alliance or
connection with his divorced wife since doing so is against Islamic law and is "Haram,"
and as a result, he is not legally obligated to support her.8

Issues

• Whether or not Muslims are affected by Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
• Whether or not the Monetary payment made by the husband upon divorce is sufficient to
free him from his obligation to support his wife?
• Whether or not the Uniform Civil Code is applicable to all religions?

Judgment

• The two Muslim organizations who joined the lawsuit as intervenors were the All India
Muslim Personal Law Board and Jamiat ulema-e-Hind.
• In this instance, the Supreme Court reached the same judgment on February 3rd, 1981,
dismissing Mohd. Ahmad Khan's appeal and upholding the High Court's decision.9
• The court ruled that Muslims were not subject to any form of discrimination because
Section 125[3] of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied to them as well.
• Although if this circumstance does not take into consideration the rule of law that is
mentioned in Section 125 of the CrPc.,1973, the Supreme Court correctly decided in this
instance that the responsibility of a Muslim husband towards his divorced wife is restricted
to the amount of the "Iddat" term.10

7
Case Law Summary: Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs Shah Bano and Others (1985 AIR 945), available at:
https://blog.ipleaders.in/case-law-summary-mohd-ahmed-khan-v-shah-bano-begum-others-1985-air-945/ (last
visited on 1st April, 2023)
8
Supra note 7 at 3
9
Supra note 3 at 2
10
Id. at 6.
 • The Supreme Court ruled that this provision violated human rights or was incorrect because
a divorced woman in this case was unable to support herself.
• So in the end, the court determined that the divorced wife must be capable of supporting
herself in order for the husband's legal liability to end.
• But, if the woman is unable to support herself financially or otherwise after the Iddat period,
the position will be reversed, and she will be eligible to receive maintenance or alimony
under Section 125 of the CrPc.11

Conclusion of the case:

The Triple Talaq decision in this case, in my opinion, was a historic one because it upholds public
trust in the legal system by declaring that "justice and equality have triumphed over religion." This
action, in my opinion, marked a turning point in the legal system because of its bold, unbiased,
and daring conclusion. The significance of maintenance for divorced Muslim women who are
unable to support themselves financially has been highlighted by this ruling. The court held in
subsequent rulings that divorced Muslim women can assert maintenance or alimony from their
former husband under Section 125 of the CrPc, or separately from this, divorced Muslim women
can assert or claim for around some money or amount under the Muslim Women Act, even though
the Supreme Court's judgment in the Shah Bano case was invalidated by the passage of the Muslim
Women Act. Even though it made an impartial decision following shady politics, the Supreme
Court was able to keep residents' faith in the legal system.

2) SHYARA BANO VS UNION OF INDIA,

Introduction

In response to the Shayara Bano case, triple talaq was outlawed in Islam. A Muslim man can
instantaneously divorce his wife under "Sharia Law" simply saying the word "TALAQ" three
times. This process is done without the involvement of the government. A Muslim woman is even
more vulnerable during this kind of unilateral and arbitrary divorce because the means of

11
Supra note 5 at 2
communication could be in any form, including written, oral, or even electronic. The word for
divorce in Arabic is "talaq."12

According to Sharia Law, there are three different sorts of divorce, but only "talaq-e-biddat" is
irrevocable. It is mostly practiced by Muslim groups in India that adhere to the Hanafi School of
Law. Muslim wives are not permitted to divorce their spouses under Islamic law, but husbands
are. The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application Act, 1937) requires women to initiate a court
procedure for divorce. Shayara Bano and Rizwan Ahmed had been wed for 15 years. Rizwan
divorced her in 2016 through oral triple talaq (talaq -e biddat). She subsequently submitted a Writ
Petition to the Supreme Court, arguing that "the performance of the practices of talaq-e-biddat,
polygamy, and nikah-halala should be ruled unconstitutional" as a breach of Articles 14, 15, 21,
and 25 of the Constitution.13

Facts of the case

• Shayara Bano and Rizwan Ahmed were wed for 15 years. She was one among the women
who had experienced dowry abuse and domestic violence.
• In 2016, she had a unilateral, quick triple talaq divorce.
• She then filed a writ case with the Supreme Court.
• The petition claims that several fundamental rights, including Articles 14 (equality before
the law), 15 (non-discrimination), 21 (right to life with dignity), and 25 (right to freedom
of conscience and religion) of the Indian Constitution, have been violated by the practices
of Instant Triple Talaq, polygamy, and Nikah Halala in Muslim personal law.14
• The Union of India, as well as women's rights groups including the Bhartiya Muslim
Mahila Andolan (BMMA) and the Bebaak Collective, backed Ms. Bano's request that these
practices be declared unlawful. They even requested the court to rule that the Fundamental
Rights apply to personal law.
• The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has argued that since Muslim
personal law is not codified and is protected by Article 25 of the Constitution, it is not

12
Case Analysis of Shayara Bano vs Union of India, available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-
8548-case-analysis-of-shayara-bano-v-s-union-of-india.html (last visited on 1st April, 2023)
13
Supra note 12 at 4.
14
Triple Talaq Case (Shayara Bano vs Union of India) (Judgment) [2017] SCC 1
 subject to constitutional judicial review. Additionally, the Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider a constitutional challenge to Muslim personal law.
• The court requested written responses from Shayara Bano, the Union of India, several
women's rights organizations, and the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB)
on the challenges and issues surrounding polygamy, nikah-halala, and talaq-e-bidat on
February 16, 2017.15

Issues

➢ Whether the practice of talaq-e-biddat, an essential practice of Islam?

➢ Whether the Indian Constitution's Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25—the fundamental rights—
are violated by the practice of Triple Talaq?

Judgment

The Triple Talaq practice was declared unlawful by the Supreme Court on August 22, 2017, by
a 3:2 majority. There were representatives of several faiths on the five-judge panel that heard the
contentious triple talaq case in 2017. The five judges represented five different ethnic groups:
Chief Justice JS Khehar, a Sikh; Justices Kurian Joseph, a Christian; RF Nariman, a Parsi; UU
Lalit, a Hindu; and Abdul Nazeer (a Muslim).16

Talaq-e-bidat is governed by Muslim personal law (Shariat) application 8, 1937, according to

Justice Rohinton Nariman and Uday Lalit. They claimed that the practice is unconstitutional
because it is arbitrary. On the other hand, Justice Kurian Joseph pointed out that because triple
talaq violates the Quran, it is not permissible. "What is believed to be terrible in the Holy Quran
cannot be excellent in Shariat, and what is bad in theology is also bad in law," he added. They
said that although Instantaneous Triple Talaq is practiced by many people, it cannot be justified
because it is against both the law and theologies.17

Importantly, Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer stated in their minority dissent that
such behavior is a fundamental component of Islam's religious system. This attitude was
supported by the argument that many individuals adhere to the talaq-e-biddat custom. As a result,

15
Id. at 5.
16
Supra note 12 at 4.
17
Supra note 12 at 4.
 this activity should be recognized as both a fundamental religious practice and a constitutional
right since it has the approval of all major religious groups and is practiced by the vast majority
of Muslims.The state cannot prohibit a person from engaging in any fundamental religious
practice, as stated in Article 25 of the Constitution. Hence, if a practice is arbitrary and not
fundamentally religious, it will fall under the exception set forth in Article 25. As this was the
case, the question at hand was whether or not Talaq-e-biddat was a fundamental Islamic
practice.18

According to Judge Khehar, this practice did not violate any of the exceptions listed in Article
25(1) of the Constitution because Shariat, or Muslim personal law, is not based on any state
legislation.19

Conclusion of the Case:

The triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) practice was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court with a 3:2
majority. And most recently, on July 30, 2019, the Indian Parliament enacted the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019, which deemed the triple talaq practice to be
unlawful, and unconstitutional, and also made it a crime punishable starting August 1. Women
who had been subjected to triple talaq have finally received justice thanks to the courts. The court
has made sure that egalitarian principles, particularly those relating to gender, are more than just
abstract ideals.

CONCLUSION

Every person should have the right to enjoy their Fundamental Rights. No person should be
treated unequally. The concept of Article 14, “Equal should be treated equally” and “unequal
should be treated unequally”, must be followed in societies. The Supreme Court held that Triple
Talaq is unconstitutional as it is against gender law and also against the principle of equality as
a Fundamental Right as it is stated in the Constitution of India and not the fundamental principle
of any Islamic law. No religion is allowed to follow any arbitrary law and should respect to our
constitution. As the constitution is serving as the grundnorm i.e. every law must follow the
Constitution and no one is above the constitution. The concept of Triple talaq (Talaq-e-biddat) is

18
Id. at 5.
19
Supra note 14 at 5.
totally arbitrary in nature. This practice is unilateral, causing the woman to suffer by robbing her
of social, legal, and economic security. As a result, it is discriminatory in character. It violates
their rights to live in equality and with dignity, which are protected by articles 14 and 21,
respectively. When the Supreme Court upheld Triple Talaq in the case of A.S. Parveen Akthar
v. Union of India, it dealt a severe blow to the fundamental liberties that make up the foundation
of the Constitution.

The rights of an individual guaranteed by articles 14, 15, and 21 of the constitution are obviously
violated by this. One incredibly important foundational element of Indian democracy is the right
to equality. The Supreme Court declares that the right to equality is a fundamental part of the
Constitution. The state is forbidden by Article 15(1) of the Constitution from discriminating
against anyone in the Indian territory on the basis of their religion, race, sex, or any combination
of those factors. Such a talaq is unconstitutional under Article 15 since it discriminates against
women and is based on sex and religion. The right to life and liberty must be exercised only in
accordance with the legal process, according to Article 21 of the Constitution. Triple Talaq
violates the spirit of Article 21 since it departs from the customary divorce structure.

SUGGESTION

We should criminalize Triple Talaq when any husband is not giving any reasonable reason for
talaq. There must be securities given to Muslim Women under Islamic law for their marriage.
People must follow reasonable and unarbitrary law. No one or no law has given any power to
violate Fundamental Rights. Triple Talaq is giving arbitrary power to a Muslim man to get rid
of their wife for the next marriage without giving a valid reason. Recently, the Supreme Court
banned Triple Talaq. But there should take other action like criminalize this concept.