The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to recognise an alleged triple talaq divorce, observing that courts cannot validate a practice declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, while calling the husband’s plea “vexatious and frivolous”.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that courts are not permitted to grant declarations affirming triple talaq, after the Supreme Court of India struck down the practice as unconstitutional in Shayara Bano v. Union of India. The High Court dismissed a husband’s request for judicial recognition of an alleged oral divorce stated to have been issued in 2015.
Justice Vivek Jain remarked that the husband’s case was “vexatious and frivolous,” adding that it sought judicial endorsement of a practice that had already been held arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution.
The matter stemmed from a civil revision petition and a connected miscellaneous petition filed by the wife, Rubina Kavi, against Rizwan Ali. The husband had earlier filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that he had divorced his wife by triple talaq on January 14, 2015, allegedly in the presence of two witnesses.
In his initial plaint, the husband claimed that his wife caused him mental cruelty, after which he allegedly pronounced triple talaq orally and later documented it in writing through a talaqnama dated January 14, 2015.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Shayara Bano in 2017, declaring instant triple talaq unconstitutional. After the ruling, the wife filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, urging that the suit was barred by law. The civil court rejected this in 2018, reasoning that the Supreme Court’s decision would apply prospectively rather than retrospectively.
Once the case was transferred to the Family Court, the wife again sought rejection of the plaint. In 2023, the husband amended his pleadings and argued that the divorce was not an instant triple talaq issued at one time. He claimed instead that it was pronounced separately on three occasions between 2013 and 2014.
The High Court observed that neither the original plaint nor the talaqnama referred to any earlier talaq in 2013 or 2014. Rather, both documents specifically mentioned triple talaq allegedly pronounced on January 14, 2015.
Rejecting the husband’s revised version, the Court held that the amendment appeared to be no more than “an attempt to wriggle out of the judgment” passed in Shayara Bano.
The Court further explained that constitutional court interpretations of law generally apply retrospectively unless the judgment itself limits the effect. Relying on an earlier division bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it reiterated that once the Supreme Court had declared triple talaq unconstitutional, no civil court could issue a declaration validating such a divorce even if the talaqnama predated Shayara Bano.
The Court observed,
“The suit in question is also vexatious and frivolous piece of litigation seeking declaration on the basis of oral triple talaq and no such declaration can be granted as per law,”
Allowing the wife’s petitions, the High Court held that both the trial court and the Family Court should have invoked Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint at the outset. Accordingly, the husband’s suit was dismissed.
ALSO READ: Assam’s Repeal of Muslim Marriage Law Sparks Controversy and Debate
The High Court also stressed that amendments to pleadings cannot substantially change the nature of the dispute or introduce an entirely new cause of action once trial has begun. It noted that while parties may pursue remedies under personal law, courts cannot permit litigants to rewrite earlier pleadings in a manner meant to bypass constitutional rulings.
Reiterating the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Shayara Bano, the High Court noted that instant triple talaq allows unilateral termination of marriage without any possibility of reconciliation, making it arbitrary and legally unenforceable.
At the same time, the High Court granted the husband liberty to seek divorce through any other legally recognised process available under Muslim personal law.
Advocate Mukhtar Ahmad appeared for the petitioner-wife, while advocate Devendra Kumar Gangrade represented the respondent-husband
Case Title: Smt. Rubina Kavi v. Rizwan Ali
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE