Noting the fact that the parties (husband-wife) acknowledged the talaq, on Tuesday (12 January) the Allahabad High Court noted that the talaq will now be considered a khula talaq.
Mohammad Gufran accused of committing crimes under section 498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, heard an appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India from the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Gautam Chowdhary.
“The pronouncement of “triple talaq” by a Muslim husband on his wife under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, was made invalid and illicit.
A Muslim husband who pronounces talaq on his partner, as alluded to in Section 3, may be punished with imprisonment under Section 4 of the Act for a period that can stretch to a few years.
Mohd, the petitioner. Together with Huma (Gufran’s wife), Gufran claimed before the Court that they wanted to bury their differences and that they had acknowledged the talaq.
Court stated,
As the parties belong to the Muslim faith, they have acknowledged the talaq as today, which will now be converted into a khula talaq as per the “Khula talaq” Muslim Women (Protection of Divorce Rights) Act, 1986.”
The Court refrained from opining as to whether it was a pressure technique or whether it was a genuine complaint and observed that the parties “the parties have undertaken not to participate in any litigation.
Although the State counsel had his own reservations, nonetheless while seeing that it was a private contest and it does not influence public space or public strategy of the State, he expressed under the steady gaze of the Court that “this may not be treated as a point of reference in future.”
In related news, the Supreme Court a month ago held that there is no bar on conceding expectant bail for an offense submitted under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019, given that the able court should hear the wedded Muslim lady who has submitted the question prior to giving the expectant bail.
The seat headed by Justice D. Y. Chandrachud has held that it would be at the caution of the court to give promotion interim help to the blamed during the pendency for the expectant bail application, having given notice to the wedded Muslim lady.
