Justice Anil Verma of the Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized the necessity of a Uniform Civil Code, noting the delayed realization of triple talaq’s unconstitutionality. He made this observation while partly allowing a petition involving charges under the IPC, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act 2019, and the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Madhya Pradesh: In a significant judicial observation, Justice Anil Verma of the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized the critical need for implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India. Highlighting the unconstitutionality and social detriment of the practice of triple talaq, Justice Verma pointed out that it took lawmakers many years to recognize these issues.
He asserted-
“It took lawmakers many years to recognize that triple talaq is unconstitutional and harmful to society; now, we must understand the necessity of implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the country.”
Justice Verma’s observations came while partially allowing a petition from two Mumbai-based women, Aliya and Farad Saiyyad, who were facing charges under the Indian Penal Code, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act 2019, and the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
“There are numerous other demeaning, fundamentalist, superstitious, and ultra-conservative practices in society that are disguised as faith and belief.”
-Justice Verma remarked.
He stressed that although Article 44 of the Indian Constitution advocates for a UCC, it has yet to become a tangible reality.
“Although the Constitution of India already includes Article 44, which advocates for a UCC for citizens, it needs to be implemented in practice, not just in theory. A well-drafted UCC could curb such superstitious and harmful practices, thereby strengthening the nation’s integrity.”
– he observed.
ALSO READ: Uniform Civil Code | UCC Law May Be Implemented in Uttarakhand By The End of October
The case in question revolves around the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which aims to protect the rights of Muslim women against the practice of triple talaq. Justice Verma acknowledged the severity of the issue, stating-
“This matter concerns the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, and highlights the seriousness of the triple talaq issue.”
The High Court’s comments were made during the hearing of a petition filed by Aliya and Farad Saiyyad, who sought the quashing of an FIR against them. The FIR was lodged under the IPC, Dowry Act, and the Muslim Women Act, with subsequent proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Rajpur, Barwani district, adjacent to Maharashtra. Salma, the complainant, had accused her mother-in-law Aliya, sister-in-law Farad, and her husband Faizan of physical and mental harassment over a dowry demand of Rs 2 lakh.
Salma’s ‘nikah’ took place on April 15, 2019, as per Islamic rituals. She alleged that Faizan divorced her by uttering ‘talaq’ three times, leading her to return to her parents’ home in Barwani and file a police complaint. As a result, Aliya, Farad, and Faizan were booked under sections 498-A and 323/34 of the IPC, section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the alleged offense occurred in Machchhi Market, Chirag Nagar in Mumbai’s Ghatkopar area, contending that Rajpur police station in Madhya Pradesh lacked jurisdiction to register the FIR.
Justice Verma’s remarks underscore a broader call for legal reforms and the enforcement of a Uniform Civil Code, aiming to curb outdated and harmful practices and to uphold the integrity and unity of the nation.
“It took lawmakers many years to realize that triple talaq is unconstitutional and harmful to society. We must now recognize the need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in our country.”
-he reiterated.
In a recent order, the High Court provided a significant interpretation of the jurisdictional aspects of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the applicability of specific sections of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. The court emphasized key legal positions while ruling on a case involving the pronouncement of triple talaq.
“It is a settled position of law that the ‘ordinary rule’ outlined in Section 177 of the CrPC permits courts in another local area to take cognizance of the offence,”
-stated the HC.
The court further explained-
“In addition, if an offence committed in one locality is repeated in another, the courts in the latter location are competent to hear the case.”
The court elaborated on jurisdiction, noting that-
“If an offence is committed in another jurisdiction as a result of the consequences of a criminal act, the court in that jurisdiction is also competent to take cognizance under Section 179.”
The petitioners’ counsel argued that Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which address the pronouncement of talaq as void and illegal and prescribe punishment for the same, are applicable solely to the husband. They contended that these sections do not extend to the in-laws or other relatives of the wife.
ALSO READ: Rajya Sabha MP P. Wilson Writes To Law Commission On UCC
The court confirmed this interpretation, stating-
“Section 3 of the 2019 Act renders the pronouncement of triple talaq void and illegal, while Section 4 prescribes a punishment of up to three years in jail.”
The court further clarified-
“Therefore, it is clear that the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 specifically apply to Muslim husbands alone.”
Given this interpretation, the court concluded-
“Therefore, the petitioners, who are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant, cannot be prosecuted for the offence of pronouncement of triple talaq under the 2019 Act.”
Consequently,
“Therefore, the offence registered against the petitioners under Section 4 of the 2019 Act should be quashed.”
– the court observed.
However, the court took a different stance regarding allegations of dowry-related harassment.
“Given the prima facie evidence on record, the allegations in the FIR regarding mental and physical harassment of the complainant for failing to meet dowry demands cannot be quashed.”
– the court order said.