Talaq-ul-Biddat must be for a reasonable cause and preceded by attempts at reconciliation, as declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Shamim Ara, 2002. The Act, dealing with Personal Law, cannot be declared void or unconstitutional by reason of any inconsistency with Part III of the Constitution.

R.Jayasimha Babu, J.

The relief sought in the writ petition is for a declaration that Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 in so far as it seeks to recognise and validate Talaaq-ul-Biddat or Talaaq-i-Badai form of divorce as void and unconstitutional.

2. The petitioner is a Muslim woman who was aged 27 years at the time of her marriage, on 06.02.1990 to the second respondent and who on 01.05.1991 was intimated through her father that the second respondent had pronounced talaq in the presence of two witnesses in a single sitting in Talaq-ul-biddat or Talaq-i-badai form. She has stated that after her marriage to the second respondent according to the Sunni Mohammadan rites and customs and after she commenced her marital life with the second respondent, she was ill-treated in various ways and forced to undergo abortion against her wishes. She has also stated that her parents had been compelled to give dowry before the marriage and that even after that the second respondent threatened to divorce her if she did not persuade her parents to give him a scooter as an additional dowry. She has stated that she is employed as a typist in the Public Works Department, that she had sought and obtained transfer to Madurai, that she was sent out of marital home on 04.03.1991, and that she was forced to stay in a local ladies hostel. She has stated that the second respondent had told her that he would permit her to live with him only if additional dowry is given to him by her parents.

3. She has further averred that after the receipt of the notice sent by the second respondent to her father in which it was stated that he had effected divorce in Talaq-ul-biddat form, attempts were made to persuade the second respondent to take back the petitioner, but he declined to do so on the ground that the irrevocable talaq had already taken place. She has stated that on a complaint being made to the police about the dowry harassment, the second respondent's parents returned Rs.10,000/- out of the amount of Rs.15,000/- paid as dowry and also some of the articles given by her parents at the time of the petitioner's marriage.

4. She has averred that Talaq-ul-biddat is not a mode recognised in the Quran, and that the Holy Book provides for reconsideration and reconciliation before recognising divorce as irrevocable. The petitioner has referred to Chapter IV verse 35 of Quran which says, "Any if you fear a breach between the two, appoint an arbiter from his people and an arbiter from her people. If they desire agreement, God will effect harmony between them." She has also stated that due to lack of knowledge and understanding of the permissible forms of talaq and of the need for reconciliation and reconsideration before it could be regarded as irrevocable, this form of talaq has been widely used resulting in untold misery and harm to the divorced wife and the children of the marriage.

5. It is her further case that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, by providing for the application of Muslim Personal Law in matters relating to marriage where the parties are Muslims, conveyed a wrong impression that the law sanctions this sinful form of talaq which form, according to the petitioner is grossly injurious to the human rights of the married Muslim women and offends Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. She has submitted that the assumptions and beliefs upon which such a form of divorce is recognised are factually false, scientifically untenable and contrary to the spirit and provisions of the Constitution. She has also stated that this form of divorce has been declared to be a spiritual offence in the Quran and giving recognition to that form interferes with the Muslim women's right to profess and practice her religion, inasmuch as it unleashes a spiritual offence on her and is thus, violative of Article 25 of the Constitution.

6. Though the petition was initially filed only against the Union of In