<p>The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a POCSO case against a man who married a 16-year-old girl, holding that a marriage claimed to be valid under Muslim personal law cannot shield an adult from prosecution for having sexual intercourse with a wife below 18.&nbsp;</p><p>The court said such a view would weaken the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and refused to quash an FIR against a man accused of sexually assaulting his minor wife.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Justice Sanjeev Narula said in his September 23 order that the statutory age of 18 under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) cannot be replaced by the concept of puberty under personal law.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Justice Narula said the law’s protection cannot depend on whether a marriage was arranged before the sexual relationship came to light. “The statutory protection would then depend not upon the age of the child, but upon whether a marriage had been arranged before the sexual relationship was discovered. That would turn the legislation on its head,” the court said.</p><p>The court was dealing with a petition seeking the quashing of FIR No. 189/2026 registered at Darya Ganj Police Station under Section 64(1) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The case involved a couple who married when the girl was 16 years and three months old and the man was 28. They lived together, and the girl became pregnant. Her age came to light when she went to a government hospital during her pregnancy. She later delivered a stillborn baby in June. After the hospital authorities informed the police, a case was registered against the man under the POCSO Act.</p><p>The girl said the marriage had taken place with the consent of both families and that she had not faced any force or coercion. She had earlier supported the man’s bail plea and sought his presence during her pregnancy.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The court said the girl’s consent or the absence of force and coercion could take the case outside POCSO. “POCSO does not confer such a power upon the child, her parents, or the Court,” it observed.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>In their plea before the court, the couple argued that under Muslim personal law, a girl who had attained puberty was competent to marry, and so if the marriage was valid, then the subsequent sexual relationship could not lead to criminal liability.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The court rejected the argument, saying a marriage under Muslim personal law does not by itself remove the criminality of sexual relations with a minor. “To quash the FIR merely because the parties describe themselves as married and petitioner no. 2 supports petitioner no. 1 would effectively introduce a marital exception into the POCSO Act for a category of children for whom Parliament has consciously provided none,” it said.</p><p>The court added that marriage does not change a child’s age, and drew a distinction between the civil validity of a marriage and the criminal consequences of sexual intercourse with a minor.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The court clarified that it was not deciding whether the nikah was valid, void or voidable.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Justice Narula said that even if the marriage was assumed to be valid under Muslim personal law, it could not create an exception to the POCSO Act or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. “The conclusion is narrower: a marriage claimed to be valid under Muslim personal law cannot, by reason of that status alone, confer immunity from POCSO or BNS for sexual intercourse with a wife who was below 18 at the relevant time. Any other view would create, through judicial decision, an exception which Parliament has expressly excluded,” the court said.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The HC also rejected the argument that the FIR was unsustainable because neither the girl nor her family had approached the police. In this case, once doctors learnt that the pregnant patient was below 18, the statutory reporting mechanism was triggered, the court said.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The petitioners had also sought disciplinary action against police officials and compensation for alleged false implication and harassment.</p>

The Delhi High Court said that the girl’s consent or the absence of force and coercion could not take the case out of the purview of the POCSO Act. “POCSO does not confer such a power upon the child, her parents, or the Court,” it observed.

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a POCSO case against a man who married a 16-year-old girl, holding that a marriage claimed to be valid under Muslim personal law cannot shield an adult from prosecution for having sexual intercourse with a wife below 18. The court said such a view would weaken the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and refused to quash an FIR against a man accused of sexually assaulting his minor wife. Justice Sanjeev Narula said in his September 23 order that the statutory age of 18 under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) cannot be replaced by the concept of puberty under personal law. Justice Narula said the law’s protection cannot depend on whether a marriage was arranged before the sexual relationship came to light. “The statutory protection would then depend not upon the age of the child, but upon whether a marriage had been arranged before the sexual relationship was discovered. That would turn the legislation on its head,” the court said. The court was dealing with a petition seeking the quashing of FIR No. 189/2026 registered at Darya Ganj Police Station under Section 64(1) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The case involved a couple who married when the girl was 16 years and three months old and the man was 28. They lived together, and the girl became pregnant. Her age came to light when she went to a government hospital during her pregnancy. She later delivered a stillborn baby in June. After the hospital authorities informed the police, a case was registered against the man under the POCSO Act. The girl said the marriage had taken place with the consent of both families and that she had not faced any force or coercion. She had earlier supported the man’s bail plea and sought his presence during her pregnancy. The court said the girl’s consent or the absence of force and coercion could take the case outside POCSO. “POCSO does not confer such a power upon the child, her parents, or the Court,” it observed. In their plea before the court, the couple argued that under Muslim personal law, a girl who had attained puberty was competent to marry, and so if the marriage was valid, then the subsequent sexual relationship could not lead to criminal liability. The court rejected the argument, saying a marriage under Muslim personal law does not by itself remove the criminality of sexual relations with a minor. “To quash the FIR merely because the parties describe themselves as married and petitioner no. 2 supports petitioner no. 1 would effectively introduce a marital exception into the POCSO Act for a category of children for whom Parliament has consciously provided none,” it said. The court added that marriage does not change a child’s age, and drew a distinction between the civil validity of a marriage and the criminal consequences of sexual intercourse with a minor. The court clarified that it was not deciding whether the nikah was valid, void or voidable. Justice Narula said that even if the marriage was assumed to be valid under Muslim personal law, it could not create an exception to the POCSO Act or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. “The conclusion is narrower: a marriage claimed to be valid under Muslim personal law cannot, by reason of that status alone, confer immunity from POCSO or BNS for sexual intercourse with a wife who was below 18 at the relevant time. Any other view would create, through judicial decision, an exception which Parliament has expressly excluded,” the court said. The HC also rejected the argument that the FIR was unsustainable because neither the girl nor her family had approached the police. In this case, once doctors learnt that the pregnant patient was below 18, the statutory reporting mechanism was triggered, the court said. The petitioners had also sought disciplinary action against police officials and compensation for alleged false implication and harassment.

<p>The Delhi High Court said that the girl’s consent or the absence of force and coercion could not take the case out of the purview of the POCSO Act. “POCSO does not confer such a power upon the child, her parents, or the Court,” it observed.</p>

Muslim marriage cannot shield sex with minor wife from prosecution under POCSO: Delhi HC

<p>The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India on triple talaq is a progressive step towards building a more egalitarian, fair and gender just India. The majority verdict has termed the instant triple talaq ((talaq-e- biddat or heretical and irregular mode of divorce) void ab initio (illegal at the outset) while describing the practice as &lsquo;manifestly arbitrary&rsquo;. The majority view also unequivocally declared that the instant triple talaq went against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and violated the Islamic law or the Shariat. The minority verdict had asked the government to frame a law within six months on the instant triple talaq. It also issued an instant injunction on such&nbsp;practice for the next six months till the new legislation is enacted along. However, the Supreme Court has issued a caveat that failing such a law, the injunction would cease to operate.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have banned instant triple talaq.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have banned instant triple talaq. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The practice of instant triple talaq has been generally followed by the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam in India, which forms a substantial majority of the Indian Muslims (about 90 per cent of the Sunni Muslims in India according to the Court judgment). Those who claim to be outside the four main schools of Sunni Islam, like the Shia Muslims and the followers of the Ahl-i-Hadith tradition do not follow the practice of instant triple talaq. In this respect, the Supreme Court judgment, citing the cases of Pakistan and Bangladesh, both of which banned instant triple talaq (Pakistan in 1961 and Bangladesh amending the 1961 Ordinance in 1985) while an overwhelming majority in these countries following the Sunni Hanafi School is extremely significant.</p>

<p>The Court judgment has rightly pointed out that the practice of divorce through &lsquo;talaq-e-biddat&rsquo; was &lsquo;prevalent in states having sizeable Muslim populations&rsquo;, but it has been &lsquo;statutorily done away with...by legislation, the world over, in Islamic, as well as, non-Islamic States&rsquo;,&nbsp;including Turkey, Egypt, and Afghanistan where the majority of the Muslims follow the Sunni Hanafi school.</p>

<p>This particular judgment has long term implications for further reforms of several patriarchal aspects of the Muslim Personal Law. For instance, in matters of alimony for divorced Muslim women, polygamy, methods of remarriage (nikah halala) and inheritance. While in many Muslim countries, such a horrible practice has been banned long ago, the Indian Muslims had to wait for so many decades and that too after a judicial intervention to outlaw this inhumane practice of instant triple talaq, legitimised by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937.&nbsp;</p>

<p>From the 1920s to 1970s, a significant part of the Muslim world was governed by progressive and secular forces until they were challenged by the rise of Islamism in the last four decades. By contrast, in India, the progressive-secular discourses were never a dominant political discourse among Indian Muslims. Before the partition, barring few exceptions, progressive political articulation was never dominant among Indian Muslims. The partition led to further dwindling of the prominent progressive voices among the Muslim community as some emigrated out of India. Although,&nbsp;Indian Muslims never had a dominant progressive political articulation within the community throughout India&rsquo;s postcolonial history, yet they have largely favoured secular political formations while distancing from the communal political forces of both majoritarian and minority variety.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Conservative section among the Indian Muslims has actually taken advantage of the silence of the silent majority of moderate Muslims</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Conservative section among the Indian Muslims has actually taken advantage of the silence of the silent majority of moderate Muslims" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The absence of a progressive political leadership among Muslims in India has created conditions in which the theo-political identity of Indian Muslims has been foregrounded at the cost of class issues (education, health, employment) and citizenship identities by the conservative section of the Muslim community. This conservative section among the Indian Muslims has actually taken advantage of the silence of the silent majority of moderate Muslims, who might diligently follow Islam but are not vocal enough to protest against the misuse and misinterpretation of the Islamic religion by the conservatives on many occasions.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Although one can notice a crisis of progressive political articulation among the Muslims in India, it is certainly not absent from the Muslim community. In the past, there were progressive voices who protested against the injustices of Shah Bano and today, one can see the activism of Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, Bebaak Collective, Awaz-e-Niswaan, Sahiyar, Muslim Mahila Manch, Pehchan, Muhim, Parvaaz Sangathan etc who joined the cause of the five Muslim women petitioners&mdash;Shayara Bano, Gulshan Parveen, Ishrat Jahan, Afreen Rahman and Farha Faiz in this case against instant triple talaq. These groups are run by Muslim women and have been involved in numerous struggles for dignity, gender justice and gender equality in the last three decades.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Groups run by Muslim women have been involved in numerous struggles for dignity, gender justice and gender equality in the last three decades.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Groups run by Muslim women have been involved in numerous struggles for dignity, gender justice and gender equality in the last three decades." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The political implication of this judgment is too obvious. No matter how many normative appeals are being made for not politicising the Court&#39;s judgment, the fact of the matter is that it could be a talking point of a pragmatic and calculated political campaign of the BJP in future elections. Already, the BJP spokespersons are reminding about the Rajiv Gandhi led Congress government&rsquo;s capitulation before the conservative Muslim leaders in the Shah Bano case, regarding alimony for divorced Muslim women during 1985-86, in contrast to their public support to this issue along with the BJP led central government&rsquo;s supporting affidavit in the case against triple talaq.</p>

<p>Although the BJP can certainly celebrate this judgment, the track record of the RSS (BJP&rsquo;s ideological mentor) and the Hindu Mahasabha is abysmal as far as the Personal Law reforms in the form of the Hindu Code Bill is concerned. Both the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha along with some major Congress leaders vehemently opposed the Hindu Code Bill. The present judgment has clearly denied an indisputable provision to bring in a law on Muslim personal matters while setting aside the triple talaq issue from the rest of the Muslim Personal Law. But this historic judgment has definitely created conditions for further reforms of the Personal Laws for both Muslim and non-Muslim citizens of the country.</p>

<p>If a radical initiative for Personal Law reforms or uniform civil code is being made in the future then, it must be preceded by democratic forms of wider public debates, followed by referendum among each major religious community in the country. Neither the All India Muslim Personal Law Board nor the Sangh Parivar represents the Muslims and Hindus respectively. If laws are meant to govern the lives of the citizens then the citizens must decide how they should be governed. &nbsp;</p>


After independence, progressive-secular discourses were never a dominant political discourse among Indian Muslims.

The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India on triple talaq is a progressive step towards building a more egalitarian, fair and gender just India. The majority verdict has termed the instant triple talaq ((talaq-e- biddat or heretical and irregular mode of divorce) void ab initio (illegal at the outset) while describing the practice as ‘manifestly arbitrary’. The majority view also unequivocally declared that the instant triple talaq went against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and violated the Islamic law or the Shariat. The minority verdict had asked the government to frame a law within six months on the instant triple talaq. It also issued an instant injunction on such practice for the next six months till the new legislation is enacted along. However, the Supreme Court has issued a caveat that failing such a law, the injunction would cease to operate. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have banned instant triple talaq. × The practice of instant triple talaq has been generally followed by the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam in India, which forms a substantial majority of the Indian Muslims (about 90 per cent of the Sunni Muslims in India according to the Court judgment). Those who claim to be outside the four main schools of Sunni Islam, like the Shia Muslims and the followers of the Ahl-i-Hadith tradition do not follow the practice of instant triple talaq. In this respect, the Supreme Court judgment, citing the cases of Pakistan and Bangladesh, both of which banned instant triple talaq (Pakistan in 1961 and Bangladesh amending the 1961 Ordinance in 1985) while an overwhelming majority in these countries following the Sunni Hanafi School is extremely significant. The Court judgment has rightly pointed out that the practice of divorce through ‘talaq-e-biddat’ was ‘prevalent in states having sizeable Muslim populations’, but it has been ‘statutorily done away with...by legislation, the world over, in Islamic, as well as, non-Islamic States’, including Turkey, Egypt, and Afghanistan where the majority of the Muslims follow the Sunni Hanafi school. This particular judgment has long term implications for further reforms of several patriarchal aspects of the Muslim Personal Law. For instance, in matters of alimony for divorced Muslim women, polygamy, methods of remarriage (nikah halala) and inheritance. While in many Muslim countries, such a horrible practice has been banned long ago, the Indian Muslims had to wait for so many decades and that too after a judicial intervention to outlaw this inhumane practice of instant triple talaq, legitimised by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937. From the 1920s to 1970s, a significant part of the Muslim world was governed by progressive and secular forces until they were challenged by the rise of Islamism in the last four decades. By contrast, in India, the progressive-secular discourses were never a dominant political discourse among Indian Muslims. Before the partition, barring few exceptions, progressive political articulation was never dominant among Indian Muslims. The partition led to further dwindling of the prominent progressive voices among the Muslim community as some emigrated out of India. Although, Indian Muslims never had a dominant progressive political articulation within the community throughout India’s postcolonial history, yet they have largely favoured secular political formations while distancing from the communal political forces of both majoritarian and minority variety. Conservative section among the Indian Muslims has actually taken advantage of the silence of the silent majority of moderate Muslims × The absence of a progressive political leadership among Muslims in India has created conditions in which the theo-political identity of Indian Muslims has been foregrounded at the cost of class issues (education, health, employment) and citizenship identities by the conservative section of the Muslim community. This conservative section among the Indian Muslims has actually taken advantage of the silence of the silent majority of moderate Muslims, who might diligently follow Islam but are not vocal enough to protest against the misuse and misinterpretation of the Islamic religion by the conservatives on many occasions. Although one can notice a crisis of progressive political articulation among the Muslims in India, it is certainly not absent from the Muslim community. In the past, there were progressive voices who protested against the injustices of Shah Bano and today, one can see the activism of Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, Bebaak Collective, Awaz-e-Niswaan, Sahiyar, Muslim Mahila Manch, Pehchan, Muhim, Parvaaz Sangathan etc who joined the cause of the five Muslim women petitioners—Shayara Bano, Gulshan Parveen, Ishrat Jahan, Afreen Rahman and Farha Faiz in this case against instant triple talaq. These groups are run by Muslim women and have been involved in numerous struggles for dignity, gender justice and gender equality in the last three decades. Groups run by Muslim women have been involved in numerous struggles for dignity, gender justice and gender equality in the last three decades. × The political implication of this judgment is too obvious. No matter how many normative appeals are being made for not politicising the Court's judgment, the fact of the matter is that it could be a talking point of a pragmatic and calculated political campaign of the BJP in future elections. Already, the BJP spokespersons are reminding about the Rajiv Gandhi led Congress government’s capitulation before the conservative Muslim leaders in the Shah Bano case, regarding alimony for divorced Muslim women during 1985-86, in contrast to their public support to this issue along with the BJP led central government’s supporting affidavit in the case against triple talaq. Although the BJP can certainly celebrate this judgment, the track record of the RSS (BJP’s ideological mentor) and the Hindu Mahasabha is abysmal as far as the Personal Law reforms in the form of the Hindu Code Bill is concerned. Both the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha along with some major Congress leaders vehemently opposed the Hindu Code Bill. The present judgment has clearly denied an indisputable provision to bring in a law on Muslim personal matters while setting aside the triple talaq issue from the rest of the Muslim Personal Law. But this historic judgment has definitely created conditions for further reforms of the Personal Laws for both Muslim and non-Muslim citizens of the country. If a radical initiative for Personal Law reforms or uniform civil code is being made in the future then, it must be preceded by democratic forms of wider public debates, followed by referendum among each major religious community in the country. Neither the All India Muslim Personal Law Board nor the Sangh Parivar represents the Muslims and Hindus respectively. If laws are meant to govern the lives of the citizens then the citizens must decide how they should be governed.

Why Indian Muslims had to wait so many decades for the ban on triple talaq

<p>Indian cinema has over the decades built a repute for portraying what is happening with common people in their real lives.&nbsp;</p>

<p>A movie titled &ldquo;Nikaah&rdquo; released in 1982 throwing light on the complexities of a triangle love story between three well-off Muslim individuals. The movie explored the problems of how triple talaq as a tool in Muslim marriages can be manipulated while the couple goes through intense personal moments.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/new%20(25)-20170822021410.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
<p>Official poster of movie Nikaah (Source: Wikimedia Commons) (Others)</p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>The movie can be attributed to making the majority Indian audience that had no idea about triple talaq aware about the existence of such a practice.&nbsp;</p>

<p>For those who still have doubts about the practice, under triple talaq, the husband can recite &#39;talaq&#39; three times consecutively to his wife and it will be considered as divorce under the Muslim Personal Law. But this is limited not exclusive to the Indian context.</p>

<p>Several Muslim countries have done away with <em>Talaq-e- </em><em>biddat</em> (instantaneous talaq) and retained <em>Talaq-e-iddat</em> (talaq with a waiting period) as the former does not fall under the Shariat law.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Several years ago, the tragedy queen of Bollywood, Meena Kumari suffered at the hands of this misinterpreted and misunderstood practice of triple talaq. Most Indian cinema lovers can swear by seeing the &ldquo;Pakeezah&rdquo; actresses&rsquo; award winning performance in the film &ldquo;Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam&rdquo; of 1963 but not many can claim to know the story behind it.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/new%20(23)-20170822021031.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
<p>Meena Kumari in a still from movie Sahib, Bibi Aur Ghulam (Source: YouTube) (Others)</p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/new%20(24)-20170822021314.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
<p>A still from Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam (Source: YouTube) (Others)</p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>Meena Kumari had recently been divorced by her husband Kamal Amrohi, legendary director using the method of consecutive triple talaq.</p>

<p>According to media reports, Kamal had slapped Meena in a fit of rage and furiously uttered &ldquo;Talaq&rdquo; three times. This was following a growing gap between the two lovers who had married against all odds--considering Kamal Amrohi was 15 years older than the Pakeezah actress and also that he was already twice married before. Meena Kumari was his third wife.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Bollywood has evolved ever since and tries to not consciously involve itself in religious matters or practices.&nbsp;</p>

<p>But there is more to what there is in actuality to this practice. Saying triple talaq consecutively is not within Islam and its principles. In fact nowhere in the Shariat law, is triple talaq validated.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Today, in a landmark judgment, the Indian Supreme court&#39;s 5-judge bench struck down triple talaq. With a 3:2 majority, triple talaq was deemed unconstitutional and the court has passed a six-month injunction against the Muslim instant divorce law. In the meantime, Parliament has been asked to legislate and bring a law in place.&nbsp;</p>

<p>(WION)</p>


Meena Kumari was divorced by Kamal Amrohi by uttering Talaq three times in a fit of rage

Indian cinema has over the decades built a repute for portraying what is happening with common people in their real lives. A movie titled “Nikaah” released in 1982 throwing light on the complexities of a triangle love story between three well-off Muslim individuals. The movie explored the problems of how triple talaq as a tool in Muslim marriages can be manipulated while the couple goes through intense personal moments. Official poster of movie Nikaah (Source: Wikimedia Commons) (Others) × The movie can be attributed to making the majority Indian audience that had no idea about triple talaq aware about the existence of such a practice. For those who still have doubts about the practice, under triple talaq, the husband can recite 'talaq' three times consecutively to his wife and it will be considered as divorce under the Muslim Personal Law. But this is limited not exclusive to the Indian context. Several Muslim countries have done away with Talaq-e- biddat (instantaneous talaq) and retained Talaq-e-iddat (talaq with a waiting period) as the former does not fall under the Shariat law. Several years ago, the tragedy queen of Bollywood, Meena Kumari suffered at the hands of this misinterpreted and misunderstood practice of triple talaq. Most Indian cinema lovers can swear by seeing the “Pakeezah” actresses’ award winning performance in the film “Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam” of 1963 but not many can claim to know the story behind it. Meena Kumari in a still from movie Sahib, Bibi Aur Ghulam (Source: YouTube) (Others) × A still from Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam (Source: YouTube) (Others) × Meena Kumari had recently been divorced by her husband Kamal Amrohi, legendary director using the method of consecutive triple talaq. According to media reports, Kamal had slapped Meena in a fit of rage and furiously uttered “Talaq” three times. This was following a growing gap between the two lovers who had married against all odds--considering Kamal Amrohi was 15 years older than the Pakeezah actress and also that he was already twice married before. Meena Kumari was his third wife. Bollywood has evolved ever since and tries to not consciously involve itself in religious matters or practices. But there is more to what there is in actuality to this practice. Saying triple talaq consecutively is not within Islam and its principles. In fact nowhere in the Shariat law, is triple talaq validated. Today, in a landmark judgment, the Indian Supreme court's 5-judge bench struck down triple talaq. With a 3:2 majority, triple talaq was deemed unconstitutional and the court has passed a six-month injunction against the Muslim instant divorce law. In the meantime, Parliament has been asked to legislate and bring a law in place. (WION)

Nikaah, Meena Kumari & the triple talaq connection

<p>&nbsp;As the Supreme Court will on Tuesday pronounce the verdict on the controversial issue of Triple Talaq, the victims hope for a favourable judgment.</p>

<p>They, however, plan to protest if the verdict doesn&#39;t come in their favour.</p>

<p>Talking to ANI, a victim said, &quot;If verdict comes in favour of us, then this will be the victory for those fighting against Triple Talaq. If in any case, the verdict comes against us, then we all women will protest because then it will be victory for exploiters not for us.</p>

<p>&quot;Meanwhile, another victim said, &quot;We hope that the judgment will come in favour of us. We were waiting for this day since long. We want complete justice, proper punishment for the culprits and enacting of new law.&quot;</p>

<p>A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS&nbsp;Khehar had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing.</p>

<p>During the hearing, the Centre had assured the apex court that it would come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if triple talaq is upheld as invalid.</p>

<p>&quot;The government will come out with law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if court holds triple talaq as invalid,&quot; Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the bench</p>

<p>.Rohatgi also conveyed to the apex court bench that triple talaq violates Muslim women&#39;s right to equality within the community, and also within the country.</p>

<p>Earlier in the hearing, the apex court refused to hear all the three cases of polygamy, nikah and halala at once, saying it will focus on one matter at a time.</p>

<p>The Attorney General and top law officers representing the Central government told the five judge Constitution bench that apex court should hear other cases also, besides Triple Talaq.</p>

<p>However, the top court said that they have limited time, so all the matters could not be covered at present.The Centre, earlier on May 11, told the apex court that it opposes the triple talaq practice and wants to fight for women equality and gender justice.</p>

<p>However, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) counsel Kapil Sibal told the apex court that Triple Talaq is a matter that comes under the Muslim Personal Law Board and therefore, in his opinion, the top court should not interfere in it.</p>

<p>While hearing several pleas filed by Muslim women challenging the practice of triple talaq, the apex court observed that it would examine whether the issue is fundamental to religion or not.</p>

<p>Relentless debates on the validity and plausibility of this practice were instigated soon after one petitioner, Shayara Banu, challenged the Muslim Personal Law over instantaneous application of triple talaq (talaq-e-bidat), polygamy and nikah-halala.</p>

<p>Supporting the stance of ending the practice of triple talaq, the Allahabad High Court had earlier asserted that the rights of any person, including Muslim women, cannot be violated in the name of `Personal Law`.In December last year, the Allahabad High Court termed the Islamic practice of divorcing a woman by uttering the word &quot;talaq&quot; thrice &quot;unconstitutional&quot;</p>


They plan to protest if the verdict is not in their favour

As the Supreme Court will on Tuesday pronounce the verdict on the controversial issue of Triple Talaq, the victims hope for a favourable judgment. They, however, plan to protest if the verdict doesn't come in their favour. Talking to ANI, a victim said, "If verdict comes in favour of us, then this will be the victory for those fighting against Triple Talaq. If in any case, the verdict comes against us, then we all women will protest because then it will be victory for exploiters not for us. "Meanwhile, another victim said, "We hope that the judgment will come in favour of us. We were waiting for this day since long. We want complete justice, proper punishment for the culprits and enacting of new law." A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing. During the hearing, the Centre had assured the apex court that it would come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if triple talaq is upheld as invalid. "The government will come out with law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if court holds triple talaq as invalid," Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the bench .Rohatgi also conveyed to the apex court bench that triple talaq violates Muslim women's right to equality within the community, and also within the country. Earlier in the hearing, the apex court refused to hear all the three cases of polygamy, nikah and halala at once, saying it will focus on one matter at a time. The Attorney General and top law officers representing the Central government told the five judge Constitution bench that apex court should hear other cases also, besides Triple Talaq. However, the top court said that they have limited time, so all the matters could not be covered at present.The Centre, earlier on May 11, told the apex court that it opposes the triple talaq practice and wants to fight for women equality and gender justice. However, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) counsel Kapil Sibal told the apex court that Triple Talaq is a matter that comes under the Muslim Personal Law Board and therefore, in his opinion, the top court should not interfere in it. While hearing several pleas filed by Muslim women challenging the practice of triple talaq, the apex court observed that it would examine whether the issue is fundamental to religion or not. Relentless debates on the validity and plausibility of this practice were instigated soon after one petitioner, Shayara Banu, challenged the Muslim Personal Law over instantaneous application of triple talaq (talaq-e-bidat), polygamy and nikah-halala. Supporting the stance of ending the practice of triple talaq, the Allahabad High Court had earlier asserted that the rights of any person, including Muslim women, cannot be violated in the name of `Personal Law`.In December last year, the Allahabad High Court termed the Islamic practice of divorcing a woman by uttering the word "talaq" thrice "unconstitutional"

Triple Talaq verdict: Victims hope for 'favourable' judgement