In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court held that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, only prohibits the practice of Triple Tala" or "Talaq-e-Biddat", and does not bar the traditional form of divorce in Islam known as "Talaq-e-Ahsan".
A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, while sitting at Aurangabad, quashed an FIR registered against Tanveer Ahmed Patel and his parents, who were accused of pronouncing an illegal and irrevocable divorce.
The court emphasized, What was prohibited was the Talaq-e-bidat and not Talaq-e-Ahsan. It would be an abuse of the process of law if the applicants are made to face trial in such circumstances.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Directs 10% Interest on Delayed Gratuity Payment to Retired Teacher
According to the case, Tanveer Ahmed married the complainant, Bushra Deshpande, on October 31, 2021. Their marriage went through a turbulent period, including serious health complications and disputes. After multiple attempts to reconcile failed, Tanveer issued a notice on December 28, 2023, stating he had pronounced a single divorce, Talaq-e-Ahsan, on December 23, 2023, in the presence of witnesses.
Following a 90-day waiting period with no resumption of marital relations, a formal Talaqnama was signed on March 24, 2024. Despite this, on April 15, 2024, Bushra filed an FIR alleging that an irrevocable form of divorce had been pronounced, invoking Section 4 of the 2019 Act.
The husband contended that he had followed the legal Islamic process, pronouncing only one Talaq and observing the required waiting period. He further argued that Talaq-e-Ahsan remains lawful and recognized under Muslim Personal Law.
In assessing the law, the bench reiterated that:
"Section 2(c) of the 2019 Act defines 'Talaq' as Talaq-e-biddat or any similar form which has the effect of being instantaneous and irrevocable. All other forms of Talaq, including Talaq-e-Ahsan, are not prohibited."
The court observed that the FIR did not allege cruelty or demand charges under IPC Section 498-A, and specifically targeted the accused under Section 4 of the 2019 Act. The judges also pointed out that:
There cannot be a common intention in the pronouncement of Talaq, hence charges against the parents under Section 34 IPC do not stand. The Act is applicable only to the husband.
Relying on previous legal precedents including Zohara Khatoon vs Mohd. Ibrahim, and decisions of the Kerala High Court, the bench reaffirmed that Talaq-e-Ahsan and Talaq-e-Hasan are permissible methods of divorce under Islamic law.
The bench concluded that since the divorce was not instantaneous and irrevocable, and proper procedures had been followed, the FIR and the ongoing proceedings under Criminal Case No. 1156 of 2024 should be quashed.
"When facts are admitted and law is clear, allowing the trial to continue would amount to misuse of legal process," the judges stated.
With this observation, the court allowed the application and set aside the FIR and criminal case against the husband and his parents.
Appearance:
Advocate SS Kazi appeared for the Applicants.
Additional Public Prosecutor AD Wange represented the State.
Advocates Shaikh Mohammad Naseer A and Shaikh Mudassir Abdul Hamid represented the Wife.
Case Title: Tanveer Ahmed Patel vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 2559 of 2024)
