O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the impugned Khula Certificate dated 21.06.2017 and quash the same as illegal.

2. The petitioner was married to the third respondent on

18.08.2013. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born to them on 21.10.2015. It appears that the third respondent left the matrimonial home on 03.09.2016. The third respondent appears to have decided to dissolve the marriage under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) by way of “Khula”.

3. Under these circumstances, the third respondent approached the second respondent Shariat Council registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, to declare the dissolution of marriage under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) by way of “Khula”. The second respondent Shariat Council has granted Khula Certificate dated 21.06.2017 to the third respondent, against which, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. The facts on record indicates that while the proceedings were pending before the second respondent Shariat Council, the petitioner had filed O.S.No.145 of 2017 for “Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The suit is said to have been decreed as exparte.

5. In this Writ Petition, the third respondent has chosen to remain absent. The petitioner had also filed another Original Petition in O.P.No.23 of 2018 under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 which was subsequently allowed. As on date, E.P.No.180 of 2022 is pending before the I Additional Family Court for execution of Decree.

6. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishwa Madan Lochan Vs. Union of India and others (2014) 7 SCC 707. A specific reference was made to para 13 from the said decision wherein it has been held that whatever may be the status of “fatwa” during Mogul or British Rule, it has no place in independent India under our Constitutional Scheme. The Court there held that “fatwa” has no legal sanction and cannot be enforced either by the Dar-ul-Qaza or by any other person. The Court held that “The person or the body concerned may ignore it and it will not be necessary for anybody to challenge it before any court of law. It can simply be ignored. In case any person or body tries to impose it, their act would be illegal. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that Dar-ul-Qazas and Nizam-

e-Qaza are running a parallel judicial system is misconceived. ”

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon an order dated 19.01.2017 of the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in PIL, in Abdur Rahman Vs. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai -9 and others in W.P.No.33059 of 2016, filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to restrain the fourth respondent therein namely, Makka Masjid Shariat Council and other similar organizations from functioning as adjudicating body. A specific reference is made to para 13 of the above order, wherein, this Court concluded that impression which is conveyed to the public at large is of a Court functioning. Taking note of the fact that persons visiting the mosque may be from different social status and strata and in so far as the less educated persons may be concerned or women who are vulnerable, certainly the Board would give an impression as if some forum in the nature of a judicial forum is working.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an interim order was passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Bader Sayeed Vs. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 74, assailing declarations which are sought to be issued by 'Kazis' in India, particularly in Tamil Nadu, allegedly certifying a Talaq and to consequently forbear them from issuing certificates and other documents certifying or approving Talaq. Despite the same, the second respondent has now issued the impugned Certificate. As far as the jurisdiction of thi