'Uniform Civil Code' (UCC) Needed In India To Curb Many Prevalent Fundamentalist Practices Disguised As Faith & Belief: MP High Court

Observing that it took many years for lawmakers to realise that triple talaq is unconstitutional and bad for society, the single judge added that we should now realize the need for a “Uniform Civil Code” in our country.

These observations were made by the Court while dealing with a plea moved by two women seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against them under Sections 498- A, 323/34 IPC, 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

As per the complainant's case, after the marriage, she was physically and mentally harassed by her husband, mother-in-law (petitioner no. 1) and sister-in-law (petitioner no. 2) pursuant to dowry demand. It was her case that her husband uttered 'Talaq' thrice and kicked her out of the house.

Before the High Court, the Counsel for the petitioners (the complainant's mother-in-law and sister-in-law) contended that Section 4 of the Act of 2019 applies only to the Muslim husband and not to the inlaws. Hence, they are not liable for the same.

It was also submitted that omnibus allegations had been levelled against the petitioners for demanding dowry and that the FIR had been lodged with a huge delay of more than 14 months.

Further, it was also argued that the FIR lacks a specific date for the alleged incident, and since Petitioner No. 2 is married and lives separately from her parents, she had no role to play in the alleged dowry demand.Against this backdrop, it was pleaded that the FIR be quashed.

High Court's observations

At the outset, regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, the Court observed that this case involves a matrimonial dispute and the complainant had expressly stated in the FIR that she wished to reconcile with her husband and avoid damaging her marital relationship, which is why she had not filed the FIR earlier.

The Court further noted that such a delay in lodging the FIR would not be sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings.

Additionally, addressing the petitioners' argument that Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 2019 apply only to Muslim husbands and not to their in-laws, the Court, agreeing with the petitioners, clarified that these provisions specifically address the issue of triple talaq issued by the husband. Consequently, Sections 3 and 4 apply exclusively to Muslim husbands.

In view of this, the Court held that the petitioners (mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant) could not be prosecuted for the offence of pronouncement of triple Talaq under the Act of 2019, as the aforesaid offence can only be committed by a Muslim husband.

Hence, the offence registered against the petitioners under Section 4 of the Act of 2019 was quashed.

But so far as the other offences are concerned, the Court noted that the FIR contained specific allegations against the petitioners for mental and physical harassment related to dowry demands.

The Court also observed that although petitioner No. 2 lives separately with her own family, her address is the same as that of the complainant's husband and mother-in-law. Hence, the Court concluded that this defence will be considered by the trial court only after evidence is presented.

Consequently, in view of the prima facie evidence available on record against the petitioners, the Court opined that the petition deserved to be partly allowed only in respect of the offence under Section 4 of the Act of 2019 and not in respect to other offence.

Accordingly, the petition was partly allowed, and the FIR against both petitioners regarding the offences punishable under Section 3/4 of the Act of 2019 was quashed.

The Court concluded by noting that while it took many years for lawmakers to recognize that triple talaq was unconstitutional and detrimental to society, it is now imperative to acknowledge the need for a "Uniform Civil Code" in the country.