Case Analysis - Rahmut Ullah v State of U.

P (1994) 2 DMC 64 ALL

Bench: H N Tilhari
Written By- Sukriti Pandey
PRN: 19010223114

INTRODUCTION

Muslim law is a divine law, a law which is believed to be formulated by the God (Allah)
himself. The main source of Muslim law is their Holy Quran; there are 114 chapters in the
Quran which are called Sarat or Surah. These are again divided into 6666 verses which are
called Ayat, among all those ayats there are only 200 of them which conveys principles and
only 80 out of them are for Marriage, Divorce, Inheritance and Dower1. Triple–Talaq is a
form of dissolution of marriage in Muslim Personal Law which is called “talaq–ul–bidat”
in which, the husband may pronounce the three formulae at one time, and it is irrelevant
that whether the wife is in state of tuhr or not. Rahmut Ullah v. State of U.P (1994)2., is a
landmark lawsuit which has dealt with the problem of "Triple Talaq Verdict".
This case was heard by the Allahabad High Court where they clearly stated that that an
irrevocable talaq (talaq-e-biddat) is unlawful because this kind of talaq is against the
dictates of the Holy Quran and is also against the provisions of the Constitution of India.
In this case comment I shall try to explore the reasoning that was used by the court and
analyse the case in question.

1
JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL] VOLUME 4 ISSUE 6
2
II (1994) DMC 64
BACKGROUND

Facts:

Rahmatullah who was the tenure-holder, had divorced his wife Smt. Khatun Nissa on 15th
September, 1969 and were living separately. According to the petitioner objector Smt.
Khatoon Nisa had been divorced according to Shariyat Law3 and the objector-petitioner
had no concern with the land of Smt. Khatoon Nisa but the Area Lekhpal on account of ill-
will and Ranjish included Smt. Khatoon Nisa's land erroneously and illegally with the
holding of the objector Rahmatullah.
The facts of the case from here become brief, under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act in the year 19744 a notice was issued to the tenure-holder
Rahmatullah, the petitioner who was exhibited as an opposite party filed by Smt. Khatoon
Nisa. The tenure-holder initially filed a writ petition which challenged validity of the Act
as well as notice issued to him and obtained an order of stay on 10.3.1975. The aforesaid
writ petition was finally dismissed by the Court. The proceedings under the Act were again
commenced in 1978 and by an ex parte order dated 12.1.1979 the Prescribed Authority
declared an area of 40.3.65 acre of irrigated land to be the surplus area of the tenure-holder.
After that, Sri Rahmatullah and his wife Smt. Khatoon Nisa moved an application for
setting aside of the ex parte order. The appeals were filed, challenging the order and the
District Judge allowed the appeals and remanded the case for a fresh decision.
It was alleged that the 24.970-acre land of Khata No. 40 belonged to Smt. Khatoon Nisa
and that the objector tenure-holder, i.e., the petitioner Rahmatullah had no concern with
Smt. Khatoon Nisa or any of the land belonging to her. Both the petitioners are placing the
said plea in order to claim that declaration of ceiling area and surplus area of the tenure-
holder after clubbing the land of the two has been illegal act, an act suffering from error of
law and jurisdiction. In order to claim and establish the plea based on divorce and benefit
thereof the tenure-holder i.e., Ramat ullah had to establish that the divorce had been given
in accordance with the law as in operation under the scheme of the Constitutional Law5 and
the Statutory Law read with Personal Law.
The matter was taken to Allahabad High Court where it was concluded that Rahmat Ullah
who pronounced divorce thrice on 15-6-69 and thereafter when a deed in the nature of
memoranda of irrevocable talaq was prepared, there was no way a divorce was established
before the eyes of law. Therefore, Smt. Khatoon-Nisa was not validly divorced she had
rightly been held to be continuing the wife of Rahmat Ullah and her property was rightly
clubbed with that of Rahmat Ullah in determining the ceiling and surplus area.

3
Section 5 Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937.
4
Land ceiling refers to fix the quantum of land held by a family.
5
Article 372 of the Indian Constitution
Issues raised in this case:

# Whether Smt. Khatoon Nisa was the divorced wife of Rahmat ullah and its effect or the
plea of divorce was taken only to save the land from the clutches of the Ceiling Act?
# Whether the petitioner Rahmat Ullah had divorced his wife Smt. Khatoon Nisa legally
and according to law and whether a valid divorce has been established and proved?
# Whether there has been a divorce or a judicial separation or not between Rahmat-Ullah
and Smt. Khatoon Nisa and if either is proved and established according to law then what
was its effect?

Judgement:

In Rahmatullah v. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court observed:

“Talaq-ul-Biddat or Talaq-i-Bidai, that is, giving an irrevocable divorce at once or at one
sitting or by pronouncing it in a tuhr once in an irrevocable manner without allowing the
period of waiting for reconciliation or without allowing the will of Allah to bring about
reunion, by removing differences or cause, of differences and helping the two in solving
their differences or cause, of differences and helping the two in solving their differences,
runs counter to the mandate of holy Quran and has been regarded as, by all under Islam-
Sunnat, to be sinful”6.
Therefore, in this case the high court declared that there was no divorce in the eye of law
that had been established between Khatoon Nisa and Rahmat Ullah. Because Khatoon Nisa
had not been validly divorced she had rightly been held to be continuing the wife of Rahmat
Ullah and her property was rightly clubbed with that of Rahmat Ullah in determining the
ceiling and surplus area. The high court in the judgement rightly observed:
“That Talaq-ul-Bidaat or Talaq-i-Bidai i.e., giving an irrevocable talaq atonce or during
one Tuhar or at one sitting has been regarded by all under Islam-Sunnat to be sinful and
to be against the mandate of Holy Quran.”
Having considered all the arguments, the court dismissed both the writ petitions as they had
no merit.

6
JUDGMENT Hari Nath Tilhari
CRITICAL ANALYSIS

In Rahmat Ullah v. State of U.P the Allahabad High Court clearly stated, that an irrevocable
talaq (talaq-e-biddat) is unlawful because this kind of talaq is against the dictates of the
Holy Quran and is also against the provisions of the Constitution of India.
This case was one of the landmark cases that decided the validity of triple talaq. It made it
clear that the term judicially separated wife connotes the idea of separation between the
husband and the wife whose marriage has not been dissolved but who live separately from
each other granted under the decree of judicial separation granted under the law applicable
to the party.
In India, Triple Talaq has been a bone of contention. Under the Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) Application Act (1937), Triple Talaq – a practice that has been discarded by
several Muslim majority countries, including Turkey, Pakistan and Bangladesh – still exists
in India. Up until now, it was maintained that when it came to marriage, divorce and other
personal rifts, the state would not interfere, and the religious law would be the prevailing
authority. But it is because of judgements like these that many legislatures and laws were
passed to protect the Muslim women from this atrocity. The court took the reference from
the case of Saiyid Rashid Ahmad vs Mussammat Anisa Khatun7 in deciding the matter.
It was decided in this case that under section 2 of the Shariyat Application Act8 the
provisions of the Shariat Act will apply to the parties of the case, it was determined the
Shariyat Law do not come in conflict or at variance with the provisions of the Constitution
or any provision of the Constitution including the preamble as well as provisions of Articles
14, 15, 21, 23 or those contained in the Directive Principles
Most importantly the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act
were declared legal and valid in the view that it did not challenge it in view of Article
31B and 31C of the Constitution of India.9
Referring to Article 37210 of the Indian Constitution the court stated that the effect of
prolonging discrimination on the ground of sex that is Male authoritarianism without rhyme
or reason, appears to be encouraging in allowing the doing of something and some Act that
prima facie appears to be derogatory of dignity of individual as well as derogatory of
dignity of women i.e., doing of something in breach of the mandate of Constitution
contained in the preamble. It was also of the view unbridled power given to the husband

7
(1932) 34 BOMLR 475
8
Notwithstanding any custom or usage to the contrary, in all questions (save questions relating to agricultural land)
regarding intestate succession, special property of females, including personal property inherited or obtained under
contract or gift or any other provision of Personal Law, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lian,
khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and trust properties, and wakfs (other than charities
and charitable institutions and charitable and religious endowments) the rule of decision in cases where the parties are
Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat).
9
Casemine
10
Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation.
that empowered him to divorce by Talaq the wife without rhyme or reason and to this extent
that husband can pronounce Talaq thrice in one sitting or during one Tuhar in irrevocable
form cannot be deemed to be operative or be considered to be continued under Section 2
of Shariyat Application Act.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This was the case of a Triple Talaq verdict which according to me was a historic verdict as
it maintains the truth and faith of the people in the judiciary. According to me this lawsuit
was milestone in judiciary as it was courageous, bold and an impartial decision.
One part of the judgement that I appreciated was that the provisions of Section 3(7) and
3(17) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were held to be legal and
valid as they were earlier opposed by the petitioners. It was held that these provisions are
intravires and their validity is not open to challenge in view of Article 31B11 and 31C12 of
the Constitution of India read with Schedule IX and provisions of Part IV.
This judgement has marked the importance of holding talaq-e-biddat unconstitutional. This
case had, to some extent, spurred the debate in India on the Uniform Civil Code. This case
was cited in numerous cases across India as a bid to defend the rights of Muslim women. I
agree with judgement of this case which was given by a single bench. This judgement
displayed nimbleness of the Indian system for progressively updating the personal laws.

11
stipulates that no legislation or provision of any law in the Ninth Schedule shall be deemed to be void, for
being inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the Fundamental Rights.
12
Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the state towards
securing [all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV] shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is
inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14