SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 691

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Sajid Muhammedkutty, S/o. Muhammed Kutty – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala and Anr. – Respondents
Crl.MC No. 6383 Of 2023
Decided On : 26-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Alias M. Cherian, K.M. Raphy, Bristo S. Pariyaram, Ameera Jojo, Minnu Darwin.
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor, Abdul Jaleel P.M., T.V. Shaji, K.N. Muhammed Thanveer, K. Shameer Mohammed, Arunima T.S., Althaf Ahmed Abdu, Public Prosecutor Sri M. P. Prasanth.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the classification of talaq as instantaneous and irrevocable (talaq-e-biddat) is essential for attracting penalties under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, and that the intention behind the talaq is crucial in determining its legal status.

Headnote:

TALAQ - MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON MARRIAGE) ACT, 2019 - Sections 3, 4 - The court analyzed the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, particularly Sections 3 and 4, which prohibit the pronouncement of instantaneous and irrevocable talaq (talaq-e-biddat) and impose penalties for such actions. The court interpreted that for the offence to be made out under these sections, the talaq must be both instantaneous and irrevocable. The court concluded that the talaq pronounced by the accused was not instantaneous and irrevocable, thus not attracting the penal provisions of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, accused in C.C.No.32/2023, sought to quash the final report alleging he committed an offence under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 by pronouncing instantaneous and irrevocable talaq on his wife. The petitioner contended that the talaq was pronounced periodically and was a permissible form (talaq-e-sunnat).

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the talaq pronounced by the petitioner was not instantaneous and irrevocable as defined under the Act. It emphasized that the intention behind the talaq was to follow the permissible form of talaq-e-sunnat, which does not attract the penal provisions of the Act.

Issues: Whether the talaq pronounced by the petitioner constituted instantaneous and irrevocable talaq (talaq-e-biddat) under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2019, thereby attracting criminal liability.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a talaq to be classified as talaq-e-biddat, it must be both instantaneous and irrevocable. The absence of compliance with the pre-requisites for talaq-e-sunnat does not automatically convert it into talaq-e-biddat. The intention of the petitioner was to pronounce talaq-e-sunnat, which does not incur penalties under the Act.

Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal miscellaneous case and quashed C.C.No.32/2023, concluding that the allegations did not constitute an offence under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

ORDER :

(A. Badharudeen, J.)

This criminal miscellaneous case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the sole accused in C.C.No.32/2023 on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodungallur, arising out of Crime No.838 of 2022 of Mathilakom Police Station, Thrissur, and the prayers are as under :

“i. To quash Annexure A1/final report in C.C.No.32/2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur.

ii. To permit the petitioner from personally pressent for the trial of the case in C.C.No.32 of 2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur and permit the petitioner to conduct the case through his counsel.

iii. To grant such other relief which are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor at length. Perused the relevant documents and the decisions cited by them.

3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Sections 3 r/w 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (‘Act, 2019’ for short hereafter), by the accused. The allegation is that the petitioner/accused herein pronounced instantaneous and irrevocable talaq upon his wife/the defacto complainant and thereby committed the above offence.

4. While seeking quashment of the proceedings on the ground that the offence is not made out, prima facie, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this matter there is no instantaneous talaq or talaq-e-biddat of irrevocable nature since the petitioner pronounced talaq periodically on 23.12.2021, 13.07.2022 and 16.10.2022 and the form of talaq pronounced by the petitioner is talaq-e-sunnat., which is legally permissible. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed decisions of this Court reported in [2022 (5) KHC 50 : 2022 KHC OnLine 532 : 2022 (4) KLT 659 : 2022(3) KLJ 537], Jahfer Sadiq E.A & anr. v. Marwa & anr., to contend that once the talaq is not instantaneous and irrevocable, it could not be said that offence under Sections 3 r/w 4 of the Act, 2019 would attract.

5. While resisting the said contention, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that in the instant case though talaq was pronounced on 3 separate occasions, the same would fall within the purview of instantaneous talaq prohibited under the Act, 2019, as the pre-conditions to satisfy talaq-e-sunnat, were not fulfilled. In support of this contention, he has placed decisions of this Court reported in [2010 (2) KHC 63 : 2010 (2) KLT 71 : ILR 2010 (2) Ker. 140], Kunhimohammed v. Ayishakutty, [[2021 (5) KHC 582 : 2021 KHC OnLine 629 : 2021 (5) KLT 564 : ILR 2021 (4) Ker. 561 : 2021 KER 36499], Sajani A. v. Dr. B. Kalam Pasha and Anr. It is zealously argued by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant that here the prosecution allegation is that the accused herein pronounced instantaneous and irrevocable talaq and thereby liable for the penal consequences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2019 and the said allegation is specifically made out.

6. As per Section 3 of the Act, 2019, any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal. Section 4 provides that any Muslim husband, who pronounces talaq referred to in Section 3 upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine for pronouncement of talaq stated under Section 3 of the Act, 2019. Section 2(c) of the Act, 2019 defines talaq mentioned in Sections 3 and 4. As per Section 2(c), ‘talaq’ means, talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband. Thus it is emphatically clear that in order to attract punishment provided

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top