The Kerala High Court has held that a husband’s consent or acceptance is immaterial when a Muslim wife invokes khula, and that a Family Court asked to endorse it need only check three ingredients rather than hold a detailed inquiry.
Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR under Section 64(1) of the BNS and Section 6 of POCSO against a man who married a 16-year-old girl, holding that a marriage recognised under Muslim personal law confers no immunity, since the age of eighteen under POCSO and the BNS cannot be replaced by puberty.
The Karnataka High Court held that a Muslim man’s second marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is void if his first marriage still subsists. It ruled that opting for the secular law overrides the polygamy permitted under Muslim personal law.
The Allahabad High Court held that the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act override Muslim Personal Law, ruling that child marriage laws apply equally to all religions. The Court refused to quash an FIR over an alleged attempt to marry a 16-year-old girl.
The Allahabad High Court held that although some schools of Muslim personal law allow marriage once a person attains puberty, this recognition cannot extend to a live-in relationship. The court clarified that such relationships remain outside recognised boundaries.
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 Supreme Court of India has issued notice to the Centre on a PIL challenging Muslim personal law provisions as discriminatory against women. The plea argues that giving women lesser inheritance violates equality under the Constitution and is not an essential religious practice.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a Muslim man’s second marriage during subsistence of the first does not constitute bigamy under Section 494 IPC. It ruled the provision is subject to Muslim personal law permitting multiple marriages under conditions.
The Allahabad High Court held that under Mohammedan law, divorce becomes effective upon pronouncement of “talaq” by the husband. A subsequent judicial decree is merely declaratory, affirming the divorce from the original date, not creating a fresh dissolution.
Today, On 10th March, The Supreme Court came out in open support of a Uniform Civil Code while hearing a plea that challenges provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. The answer, as said, is the Uniform Civil Code.
