Shamim Ara Vs State Of UP & Anr: The Hon'ble Supreme Court Has Invalidated Arbitrary Triple Talaq

Bench:
Justice R.C. Lahoti, Justice P.Venkatarama Reddi

Appellant:
Shamim Ara

Respondent:
State of U.P. & Anr.

Issues

Whether a written statement by the husband that he had separated from his wife (without imparting the separation to her) would add up to a divorce effective from the date of documenting of the written statement?

Facts of the Case

1. The wife (appellant) and Abrar Ahmed (respondent) were married in 1968.
2. The appellant filed a petition in 1979 under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code complaining of cruelty to her and her sons as well as desertion.
3. The husband answered by asserting that he had separated from her on 11-7-1987, and therefore she is not entitled for maintenance.
4. No statement of conditions, no justification by reasons, no confirmation of endeavors at compromise, and no proof of observers on the side of the talaq were showed.
5. The Family Court had acknowledged an affidavit by the husband (for some situation where the appellant was not so much as a party) as evidence of the talaq and in like manner dismissed the wife's suit for maintenance.
6. The wife appealed to the High Court. The High Court of Allahabad held that though the supposed separation had not been conveyed to the appellant, the separation stood finished in 1990 when the husband documented a written statement to her allure.
7. The appellant has further filed this appeal by special leave before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Appellant’s Contention

1. None of the ancient Holy books or sacred writings of Muslims specifies in its content such a type of separation as has been acknowledged by the High Court and the Family Court.
2. No such content has been brought to our notification which gives that a recital in any report, regardless of whether arguing or an affidavit, incorporated a statement by the husband that he has effectively separated from his wife on an unspecified or specified date regardless of whether not imparted to the wife would turn into a powerful separation on the date on which the wife ends up learning of such statement.

Respondent’s Contention

1. The respondent has dubiously made certain generalized allegations against the wife (appellant).
2. He states that since the time of the marriage he discovered his wife to be sharp, shrewd, and wicked.
3. The specifics of the claimed talaq are not argued nor the conditions under which and the people, if any, in whose presence talaq was articulated have been expressed.
4. There are no reasons validated in justification of talaq and no plea or evidence that any effort at compromise went before the talaq.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that a simple plea of talaq in answer to the procedures filed by the wife for maintenance can't be treated as a proclamation of talaq and the responsibility of the husband to pay maintenance to his wife doesn't conclude such correspondence. For separation to be substantial, talaq must be articulated according to the Quranic injunction.

Relevant Paragraphs

1. Paragraph 7: The statement of law by Mulla as contained in para 310 and references thereunder depends on specific decisions of the Privy Council and the High Courts. The choice of the A.P High Court in (1975) 1 APLJ 20 has additionally been referred to by Mulla on the side of the suggestion that the statement by the husband in pleadings documented in response to appeal to for maintenance by the wife that he had effectively separated from the candidate (wife) sometime in the past works as separation.
2. Paragraph 16:We are also of the assessment that the talaq to be powerful must be pronounced. The expression "pronounce" signifies to announce, to absolute officially, to absolute logically, to proclaim, to absolute, to verbalize). There is no verification of talaq having occurred on 11-7-1987. What the High Court has maintained as talaq is the plea taken in the written statement and its correspondence to the wife by conveying a duplicate of the written statement on 5-12-1990. We are extremely clear in our mind that a simple plea taken in the written statement of separation having been articulated at some point in the past can't without anyone else be treated as effectuating talaq on the date of conveyance of the duplicate of the written statement to the wife. Respondent should have shown proof and demonstrated the pronouncement of talaq on 11-7-1987 and if he failed in demonstrating the request brought up in the written statement, the plea should have been treated as fizzled. We disagree with the view propounded in the chose cases alluded to by Mulla and Dr. Tahir Mahmood in their particular critiques, wherein a simple request of past talaq taken in the written statement, however unverified, has been acknowledged as verification of talaq finishing the conjugal relationship with impact from the date of documenting of the written statement. A request of the previous divorce from taken in the written statement can't at all be treated as a pronouncement of talaq by the husband on the wife on the date of documenting of the written statement in the Court followed by conveyance of a duplicate thereof to the wife.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement