Triple Talaq is void and illegal under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, and the Supreme Court's judgment in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, which declared Triple Talaq unconstitutional, operates retrospectively.

ORDER:

The defendant before the learned trial Court filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of order dated 01.07.2019 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet in I.A.No.1607 of 2017 in O.S.No.195 of 2016. The respondent herein is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court.

2. The revision petitioner is wife and respondent is her husband. The respondent-husband filed O.S.No.195 of 2016 for declaration that the marriage between them was dissolved. The wife filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 C.P.C. seeking for rejection of the plaint and the learned trial Court declined it. Therefore, the wife is aggrieved and has come up with this revision.

3. Sri Shiak Dariyavali is husband, Smt. Shaik Jareena is wife and they were married on 04.11.1999 and were blessed with two sons and a daughter and they are governed by Mohammedan Law and belong to Sunnisect. These facts are not in dispute. Nearly 17 years after marriage, the husband had filed the suit before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet in O.S.No.195 of 2016. The substance of his claim is that wife left him in the year 2012 and his attempts to bring reconciliation utilizing arbiters one from him, one from the wife did not materialize and his efforts to bring reconciliation through Anjuman Committee, Chilakaluripet did not materialize. As directed by the Anjuman Committee, he paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- to his wife and at some point of time, on 22.07.2015 having received that amount of Rs.70,000/- wife joined the matrimonial home, but there was no change in her behaviour and her neglect caused distress and she never followed Muslim Rites and Customs and threatened to commit suicide and she was questioning giving away of their one of their sons in adoption to her husband’s brother and pestering her husband to bring back the child. Then it narrated about the another round of effort on part of the husband at Anjuman Committee during August, 2015 to get back his wife and then during February, 2016 the wife lodging a criminal case in Chilakaluripet Police Station against her husband. It is then stated that husband eventually pronounced Talaq thrice on 08.04.2016 and informed the same to the wife through a letter dated 08.04.2016, which was served on the wife on 18.04.2016 and he also sent a cheque dated 07.04.2016 for an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards iddat amount and on 20.07.2016 he informed the pronouncement of Talaqnama to the Anjuman Committee and served a copy of it on that Committee on 22.07.2016 and that the wife after a slumber of six months, issued a reply notice on 06.10.2016 to which the husband issued another rejoinder on 15.10.2016. It is on these averments he made the following prayer in the suit:

“(a) The plaintiff therefore prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for declaration of the dissolution of the marriage in between the plaintiff and the defendant (b) Costs (c) And such other relief as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

4. As against that, the wife filed her written statement denying all the allegations and averred about the attitude of her husband and his actions which are against Islamic Law when he gave away one of their sons in adoption, since adoption was never permitted by Islamic Law and which adoption was made without the consent of the wife and the attitude of the husband in not allowing the wife to have conversation with her own child and it mentioned about various other actions on part of the husband and questioned the correctness of alleged Talaq and called it as illegal as per Muslim Law and finally, she sought for dismissal of the suit with costs.

5. It was thereafter the wife had come up with I.A.No.1607 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 C.P.C. stating that without reasonable cause and violatin