JUDGMENT

Venkataswami, J.-All these Writ Petitions are filed as Public Interest Litigation. In W.P. (C) No. 494/96, the reliefs prayed for are as follows :

(a) to decided Muslim Personal Law which allows polygamy as void as offending Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution;

(b) to declare Muslim Personal Law which enables a Muslim male to give unilateral Talaq to his wife without her consent and without resort to judicial process of courts, as void, offending Articles 13, 14 and 15 of the Constitution;

(c) to declare that the mere fact that a Muslim husband takes more than one wife is an act of cruelty within the meaning of Clause VIII (f) of Section 2 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.

(d) to declare that Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is void as infringing Articles 14 and 15.

(e) to further declare that the provisions of Sunni and Shia laws of inheritance which discriminate against females in their share as compared to the share of males of the same status. Void as discriminating against females only on the ground of sex.

In Writ Petition (C) No. 496/96, the reliefs prayed for are the following :

(a) to declare Sections 2(2), 5(ii) & (iii), 6 and Explanation to Section 30 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as void offending Articles 14 and 15 read with Article 13 of the Constitution of India :

(b) to declare Section (2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as void offending Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India;

(c) to declare Sections 3(2), 6 and 9 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act read with Sections 6 of Guardians and Wards Act void;

(d) to declare the unfettered and absolute discretion allowed to a Hindu spouse to make testamentary disposition without providing for an ascertained share of his or her spouse and dependant, void.

In Writ Petition (C) No. 721/96, the reliefs prayed for are following :

(a) to declare Sections 10 and 34 of Indian Divorce Act void and also to declare Sections 43 to 46 of Indian Succession Act void.

2. At the outset, we would like to state that these Writ Petitions do not deserve disposal on merits inasmuch as the arguments advanced by the learned Sr. Advocate before us wholly involve issues of State policies with which the Court will not ordinarily have any concern. Further, we find that when similar attempts were made, of course by others, on earlier occasions this Court held that the remedy lies somewhere else and not by knocking at the doors of the courts.

In Maharshi Avadhesh v. Union of India1, this Court while dismissing a Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution held as follows :

"This is a petition by a party in person under Article 32 of the Constitution. The prayers are two-fold. The first prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider the question of enacting a common Civil Code for all citizens of India. The second prayer is to declare Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act, 1986 as void being arbitrary and discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 15 Fundamental Rights and Articles 44, 38, 39 and 39-A of the Constitution of India. The third prayer is to direct the respondents not to enact Shariat Act in respect of those adversely affecting the dignity and right of Muslim women and against their protection. These are all matters for legislature. The Court cannot legislate in these matters. The writ petition is dismissed.

In Reynold Rajamani and Another v. Union of India and Another2 this Court while dealing with the scope of Sections 7 and 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 held as follows :

4. It cannot be denied that society is generally interested in maintaining the marriage bond and preserving the matrimonial state with a view to protecting societal stability, the family home and the proper growth and h