Skip to main content

A way out for her too (hindu )

Muslim women are not without remedy if they want to end their marital ties

The marathon arguments on the subject of triple talaq before the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court have ended. While most Muslim women petitioners wanted nothing more than just implementation of the Koranic procedure of divorce and an end to arbitrary and instant divorce, the Attorney General said that the government could bring in a comprehensive law should the court strike down triple talaq.

Should the court or the government compel Muslim women to mandatorily use the expensive, slow and formal judicial system to get a divorce? Should the wider and more liberal right of divorce of Muslim women be taken away for the sake of judicial oversight of divorces?



It is wrong to say that Muslim women can get a divorce only through courts under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. The Act in no way takes away a Muslim woman’s right to divorce outside the formal judicial system. Since the Act was to permit courts to extend the benefit of liberal provision of Maliki and Shafii schools to Hanafis, it cannot be said to take away women’s rights under the Maliki and Shafii schools. The Act was passed because British courts were hesitant to apply Maliki law where parties were Hanafis.

A study and options

A Muslim wife is certainly entitled to divorce her husband without taking recourse to the 1939 Act. What are the options available to a Muslim woman to dissolve her marriage?



My study of 74 Darul Kaza (arbitration councils) run by the Muslim Personal Law Board too reveals that 69.70% of women resort to this outside the court forum to resolve their disputes. Out of 74 Darul Kaza, in 90% of cases women approached as many as 49 Darul Kaza for annulment of marriage. In 16 Darul Kaza, 70% women came for this purpose.


Second, a Muslim woman is entitled to Talak-e-Tafwid, i.e. delegated divorce which gives her an identical right to divorce on a par with men. The Orissa Mohammedan Marriage & Divorce Registration Act, 1949 does provide for the registration of such a divorce. In Moharam Ali v. Ayesha Khatun (1915), the Calcutta High Court upheld this kind of agreement under which wife was authorised to divorce her husband in case he married any other woman.

Khula, the third type of divorce, is the unconditional and absolute right of the Muslim wife, is on a par with the husband’s right to talaq, and is not subject to his consent. Several State laws such as in Odisha, Bihar, Assam and West Bengal do provide for the registration of khula. It is wrong to presume that she must necessarily surrender her mehar (dower) for getting khula because the Koran discourages men to take back the gifts given to their wives and the dower is indeed a free gift. The moment she decides to divorce her husband under khula, the husband has no right to oppose it. My study showed that more than 70% women get khula through Darul Kaza.

Fourth, a Muslim wife is also entitled to divorce with mutual consent (Mubaraat) which too is mentioned as a distinct form of divorce in the Shariat Act of 1937. Unlike khula, here both parties agree to dissolve their marriage outside court.


Thus, Muslim women are not without remedy if they want to put an end to their marital ties. Let our courts not be further burdened with the additional load of Muslim divorces. Let Muslim women continue to use these liberal out-of-court divorce provisions. Alternative methods of dispute resolution such as arbitration and mediation are an integral part of our legal system.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NGT terminates chairmen of pollution control boards in 10 states (downtoearth,)

Cracking the whip on 10 State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) for ad-hoc appointments, the National Green Tribunal has ordered the termination of Chairpersons of these regulatory authorities. The concerned states are Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Rajasthan, Telangana, Haryana, Maharashtra and Manipur. The order was given last week by the principal bench of the NGT, chaired by Justice Swatanter Kumar. The recent order of June 8, 2017, comes as a follow-up to an NGT judgment given in August 2016. In that judgment, the NGT had issued directions on appointments of Chairmen and Member Secretaries of the SPCBs, emphasising on crucial roles they have in pollution control and abatement. It then specified required qualifications as well as tenure of the authorities. States were required to act on the orders within three months and frame Rules for appointment [See Box: Highlights of the NGT judgment of 2016 on criteria for SPCB chairperson appointment]. Having

High dose of Vitamin C and B3 can kill colon cancer cells: study (downtoearth)

In a first, a team of researchers has found that high doses of Vitamin C and niacin or Vitamin B3 can kill cancer stem cells. A study published in Cell Biology International showed the opposing effects of low and high dose of vitamin C and vitamin B3 on colon cancer stem cells. Led by Bipasha Bose and Sudheer Shenoy, the team found that while low doses (5-25 micromolar) of Vitamin C and B3 proliferate colon cancer stem cells, high doses (100 to 1,000 micromolar) killed cancer stem cells. Such high doses of vitamins can only be achieved through intravenous injections in colon cancer patients. The third leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, colon cancer can be prevented by an intake of dietary fibre and lifestyle changes. While the next step of the researchers is to delineate the mechanisms involved in such opposing effects, they also hope to establish a therapeutic dose of Vitamin C and B3 for colon cancer stem cell therapy. “If the therapeutic dose gets validated under in vivo

SC asks Centre to strike a balance on Rohingya issue (.hindu)

Supreme Court orally indicates that the government should not deport Rohingya “now” as the Centre prevails over it to not record any such views in its formal order, citing “international ramifications”. The Supreme Court on Friday came close to ordering the government not to deport the Rohingya. It finally settled on merely observing that a balance should be struck between humanitarian concern for the community and the country's national security and economic interests. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions, one filed by persons within the Rohingya community, against a proposed move to deport over 40,000 Rohingya refugees. A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, began by orally indicating that the government should not deport Rohingya “now”, but the government prevailed on the court to not pass any formal order, citing “international ramifications”. With this, the status quo continues even though the court gave the community liberty to approach i