Bombay HC: Whether husband can be prosecuted under the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 if he has given Talaq-e-Ahsan to his wife ?

 Section 4 of the said Act provides for pronouncement of Talaq. Any muslim husband, who pronounces Talaq referred to in Section 3upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. For this purpose, we will have to consider the definition given in Section 2(c) of word ‘Talaq’. The said Section 2(c) defines word ‘Talaq’ means ‘Talaq-ebiddat’ or any other similar form of Talaq having the effect of instantaneous or irrevocable divorce pronounced by the Muslimhusband. Section 3 provides any pronouncement of Talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or in electric form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal. Therefore, for Section 3 also the definition that has been given in Section 2(c) of the said Act will have to be considered. Once again, if we consider Section 2(c) of the said Act, then Talaq means Talaq-e-biddat or any other form of Talaq, which is having instantaneous effect or irrevocable effect of the pronouncement. All other forms of Talaq were not prohibited or barred and, therefore, the Single Bench of Kerala High Court has, therefore, considered Talaq-e-Ahsan and Talaq-e-Hasan as well as Talaq-e-biddat.Talaq-e-biddat in short was the practice of pronouncement of triple Talaq i.e. thrice the words to be uttered, “I divorce you” at one go. Certainly, we are required to consider the three Judge Bench decision in Zohara Khatoon (Supra) which has been taken note of i.e. paragraph No.22 thereof in the Coordinate Bench decision in Shaikh Taslim Shaikh Hakim (Supra), wherein three distinct modes of bringing a Muslim marriage to dissolution were considered. Here, we cannot consider only the irrevocable effect. What has been described in the definition of Talaq is instantaneous and irrevocable. Here, in the FIR itself, respondent No.2 has stated that the notice which applicant No.1 had given on 28.12.2023, had stated that what was given to her was Talaq-e-Ahsan i.e. one pronouncement of Talaq. Even the statements of witnesses are on the same line. In the charge-sheet itself, the copy of the said notice dated 23.12.2023 has been given wherein it is written that he was pronouncing one Talaq i.e. Talaq-e-Ahsan as per Shariyat. Thereafter, it appears that the final Talaqnama has been given on 24.03.2024, wherein it was mentioned that after 23.12.2023 within 90 days, neither respondent No.2 had resumed cohabitation and there was no resumption of physical relations between them. The legal effect of Talaq-e-Ahsan has come into play. When the facts are admitted and taking into consideration the law, what was prohibited was the Talaq-e-bidat and not Talaq-e-Ahsan, it would be an abuse of process of law, if the applicants are asked to face the trial and therefore, case is made out for quashment of the FIR and the proceedings. {Para 7}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2559 OF 2024

Tanveer Ahmed s/o Sadik Patel Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 23 APRIL 2025

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:11620-DB

 (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) 

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether parents- in -law of wife can be prosecuted under the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019?

 Before we proceed further, important point to be noted is that the present FIR is not registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code or any other Sections. Even now after the notice was served to respondent No.2, no argument has been made on her behalf that the police have failed to register the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The FIR is for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. In fact, if this FIR is to be construed to Section 4 of the said Act, then it is restricted against husband only. The father-in-law and mother-in-law cannot be included in such offence. There is no question of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code involved in such FIRs. There cannot be a common intention of pronouncement of Talaq. Therefore, even at this stage also, we can say that it would be an abuse of process of law if the matter is asked to be proceeded for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the said Act against the father-in-law and mother-in-law. {Para 6}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2559 OF 2024

Tanveer Ahmed s/o Sadik Patel Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 23 APRIL 2025

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:11620-DB

 (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :-

Print Page

Supreme Court: Triple Talaq-No Complete Bar On Anticipatory Bail For Offence Under 2019 Act, Provided Court Hear Complainant Woman

For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that on a true and harmonious construction of Section 438 of CrPC and Section 7(c) of the Act, there is no bar on granting anticipatory bail for an offence committed under the Act, provided that the competent court must hear the married Muslim woman who has made the complaint before granting the anticipatory bail. It would be at the discretion of the court to grant ad-interim relief to the accused during the pendency of the anticipatory bail application, having issued notice to the married Muslim woman.

Reportable

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Rahna Jalal vs The State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2020

Criminal Appeal No 883 of 2020  
Read full Judgment here: Click here     

Citation:(2021)1 SCC 733,2020 SCCONLINESC 1061                                                                                     

Print Page

Whether application for anticipatory bail is maintainable in offences under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019?

 When there are specific provision and specific

procedure contemplated for consideration of bail by the

Magistrate Court under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, whether

an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be entertained is

the question in this case. There is indeed no prohibition of the

applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the Act, 2019. Section

18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 clearly says that nothing in Section 438 of

the Cr.P.C. shall apply in relation to any case involving the

arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an

offence under that Act. But, there is no such prohibitory

Section in the Act, 2019 restraining the court in entertaining an

application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it cannot be

said that there is a total bar to entertain an application under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. if an offence under the Act, 2019 is alleged

against an accused.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

Bail Appl..No.9163 OF 2019

NAHAS Vs THE STATE OF KERALA,

Print Page

Guidelines of Kerala high court for the procedure to be followed for grant of bail to accused for an offence under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019

  Therefore, from the above discussions, the

following conclusions are emerged :

(i) An application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not

barred in a case in which an offence under the

provisions of Act, 2019 is alleged. But, if an

accused wants to avail the right under Section 438

Cr.P.C., he should specifically plead in an

application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. about the

reasons for not approaching the Magistrate under

Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019.

(ii) If an accused in a case registered under the

provisions of the Act, 2019 filed a Bail Application

before the Magistrate under Section 7(c), his

personal presence before the Magistrate is not

necessary till final orders are passed in the Bail

Application. The personal presence of the victim is

also not needed. The accused can file the Bail

Application through a lawyer if he intends to do so.

The victim also can contest the bail application

through a lawyer if she decides so.

(iii) If a Bail Application is filed under Section 7(c) of the

Act, 2019, the Magistrate should hear the married

Muslim woman upon whom talaq is pronounced.

(iv) The order passed in a Bail Application filed under

Section 7(c) should be a speaking order.

(v) If a Bail Application filed by an accused under

section 7(c) of the Act, 2019 is allowed, the

Magistrate can direct the accused to appear before

the court within a short period to comply the bail

conditions including the execution of bond, etc.

(vi) If a Bail Application is dismissed by the learned

Magistrate under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the

Investigating Officer can take up follow up action

and arrest the accused, if necessary.

(vii) If a Bail Application is dismissed by the learned

Magistrate under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the

accused can challenge that order, if he intends to do

so, in accordance with law. At that stage, the

accused can even file an application under Section

438 Cr.P.C., if there is an apprehension of arrest.

(viii) If an application under Section 7(c) is allowed, the

married Muslim woman upon whom a talaq is

pronounced can challenge that order in accordance

with law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

Bail Appl..No.9163 OF 2019

NAHAS Vs THE STATE OF KERALA,

Dated this the 3rd day of August 2020

Print Page