Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Court was handling a plea seeking a declaration that the criminalization of triple talaq was unconstitutional and violative to the elemental rights of Muslim men.
The Delhi high court has formed a clear view that merely because triple talaq has been declared to be void and illegal, it doesn't mean that the legislature couldn't have made the continuation of such practice an offense. (Nadeem Khan vs UOI)
Order to the present effect was passed by a Division Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rajnish Bhatnagar.
The Court was handling a plea seeking a declaration that Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 was void initially, ultra vires, unconstitutional, discriminatory, and violative to the elemental rights of Muslim men including the Petitioner, Nadeem Khan.
The section criminalizes the act of triple talaq by a Muslim husband.
The Petitioner sought a direction to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, preventing him from registering FIRs alleging the commission of an offense under Section 4 during the pendency of the writ petition.
Since such triple talaq would haven't any legal effect on the status of the Muslim marriage or have the other consequence, there was no purpose of penalizing the act, it had been contended.
Noticing that petition wasn't within the nature of a PIL, the Court refused to grant any general relief in respect of all cases involving Section 4, at this stage.
The Court further opined that since the difficulty of constitutionality was pending consideration before the Supreme Court, it might await the judgment before proceeding within the matter.
The Petitioner prayed for a direction to hold back the registration of FIRs for the alleged pronouncement of triple talaq.
It nonetheless observed that legislation is presumed to be valid, unless it's declared to be invalid, or unconstitutional by a competent court, and is struck down.
The Court stated that clear, it appeared that the thing of Section 4 was to discourage the age-old and traditional practice of pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife by resort to triple talaq.
The purpose of Section 4 appears to be to supply a deterrent against such practice.
Drawing a parallel from Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner had also prayed that since the matter involved a considerable question of law, it should be placed before a bigger Bench.
In response, the Court ruled,
"We reject this submission. Admittedly, there's no provision either within the Constitution or in the other law delivered to our notice, which needs us to put the matter before a bigger Bench at this stage. This petition has been placed before us to look at the validity of the provisions under challenge..(Reliance on) Delhi high court Rules..is absolutely misplaced."
The petition was adjourned sine die with the liberty to the parties to maneuver an application as and when the choice of the High Court is rendered.
86540
103860
630
114
59824