On Wednesday, the Bench led by Chief Justice-designate Surya Kant, sitting with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N.K. Singh, drew sharp attention to the legality of Muslim husbands authorising lawyers to issue sequential talaq notices. The Supreme Court observed that a talaqnama devoid of the husband’s signature cannot confer dissolution of marriage, cautioning that such practices expose women to severe legal vulnerability and cannot be permitted to erode their dignity.
The case arose from a petition filed by a television journalist challenging the unilateral nature of divorce under the Talaq-e-Hasan process. Her counsel, Senior Advocate Rizwan Ahmed, submitted that the petitioner’s husband, himself an advocate, had not issued the talaq notices personally. Instead, the notices were sent by another lawyer at monthly intervals, culminating in what the husband claimed was a valid divorce, following which he remarried. Senior Advocate highlighted that this method had left the petitioner in a precarious position, both socially and legally, particularly because the talaqnama did not carry the husband’s signature and was therefore incapable of constituting a valid dissolution of marriage.
The petitioner argued that “when a talaqnama does not bear the husband’s signature, it is not a valid divorce document,” further warning that reliance on such defective documentation could enable a husband to later accuse the woman of polyandry. The submission stressed that this practice jeopardised the woman’s future marital prospects, as prospective spouses may decline marriage citing the invalidity of the divorce record. Opposing this, Senior Advocate M.R. Shamshad attempted to justify the husband’s conduct by describing it as a custom prevalent within certain sections of the Muslim community.
The Bench rejected the proposition that a third party, whether a lawyer or any other individual, could issue talaq notices on behalf of the husband. Justice Surya Kant questioned the legal basis for such methods, stating, “How can this be a valid practice? The notices for talaq and talaqnama must have the signature of the husband. How can a third party give the woman notice on behalf of her husband?”
The Court further remarked, “Is this legal? How are such innovations made to give talaq? How is the community promoting such practices? We will not permit such processes to harm the dignity of the Muslim women.” The Bench added a cautionary note on the dangers of authorisation, stating, “No one can give authorisation to a lawyer or any other person to give talaq notice to a woman on his behalf. If tomorrow the husband says he has not authorised the lawyer, what will happen to the woman? We have seen in many cases where the clients have disowned lawyers’ action.”
The Court also directed attention to the broader implications for women, praising the petitioner for approaching the Court, stating, “We salute her for gathering courage to move the court challenging the unilateral Talaq-e-Hasan process of divorce. Think of the condition of millions of Muslim women, illiterate and living in rural areas. What would be their plight? The relief cannot be confined to those women who have the wherewithal to move the SC.”
Lastly, the Court declined to accept the talaq notices issued through the lawyer as constituting a valid dissolution of marriage and directed the husband to follow the due procedure under Sharia law. The petitioner, Benazeer Heena, was advised to file an application seeking directions pertaining to her and her child’s welfare and education, with the Bench assuring, “We will do the needful.” The Court also indicated that the constitutional and legal validity of the Talaq-e-Hasan process would be examined in detail during the final hearing.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
