Delhi HC Refuses To Stay FIRs Registered Under Triple Talaq Law, Says Prima Facie, Criminalisation Acts As A Deterrent Against Triple Talaq [Read Order]
Delhi High Court has noted that as per its prima facie view, merely because triple talaq has been declared to be void and illegal, it does not mean that the legislature could not have made the continuation of such practice, an offence. The Division Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rajneesh Bhatnagar further observed that the object of Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection...
Delhi High Court has noted that as per its prima facie view, merely because triple talaq has been declared to be void and illegal, it does not mean that the legislature could not have made the continuation of such practice, an offence.
The Division Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rajneesh Bhatnagar further observed that the object of Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, is to discourage the age old and traditional practice of pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife by resort to talaq-e-biddat i.e. triple talaq.
The order has come in a plea challenging the validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, so far as it criminalises the practice of triple talaq.
The Petitioner had moved an application seeking a stay on the FIRs registered under the said Act pending the disposal of this petition.
Appearing for the Petitioner, Mr Tarun Chandiok argued that the minimum number of Judges who should sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution, or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143 should be five.
Therefore, Mr Chandiok argued that even though there is no similar provision in respect of High Courts, the present petition should be placed before a Larger Bench.
The court rejected this claim by noting that there is no provision either in the Constitution, or in any other law brought to our notice, which requires us to place the matter before a Larger Bench at this stage.
'As per roster fixed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the present petition has been placed before us to examine the validity of the provisions under challenge', the court said.
Subsequently, Mr Chandiok contended that once triple talaq has been rendered void and illegal, there is no justification for criminalizing pronouncement of triple talaq, since such triple talaq would have no legal effect on the status of the Muslim marriage. He said:
'Since it is of no consequence, and does not end marital status of the wife – who may be subjected to triple talaq, there is no purpose of penalising the said Act.'
After taking note of these submissions, the court denied relief to the Petitioner by observing that a legislation is presumed to be valid, unless it is declared to be invalid, or unconstitutional by a Competent Court, and is struck down.
[Read Order]