Advocates:
['VANI KUMARI', '', 'SUJAY DAYAL', 'SANAT KUMAR JHA', '', 'BINOD KUMAR JHA', 'SANJAY KUMAR THAKUR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No.9018 of 2021

------

Danish Akhtar

....

....

….

Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Saba Parween

....

....

.... Opposite Parties

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate

Ms. Vani Kumari, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, Addl.P.P.

For the O.P. No.2

: Mr. Binod Kr. Jha, Advocate

------

Order No.03 Dated- 17.01.2022

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of

privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.231

of 2021 registered under Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on

Marriage) Act, 2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the

petitioner is that the petitioner being a Muslim husband has pronounced Talaq

referred to under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on

Marriage) Act, 2019 upon the informant/opposite party No.2 who is his wife. It

is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next

submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence but the petitioner

admits that he was the husband of the informant/opposite party No.2. It is also

submitted that the averments made in the F.I.R. do not constitute any offence

punishable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on

Marriage) Act, 2019 as the Talaq was pronounced on 21.06.2021, on 25.07.20201

as mentioned in the anticipatory bail application but the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that it has wrongly been printed as 25.07.20201 but it should

be read as 25.07.2021 and on 25.08.2021, hence, the three Talaqs were not given

simultaneously. It is next submitted that Section 2 (c) of the Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 defines Talaq as- “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. It is

then

submitted

that

the

Talaq

between

the

petitioner

and

the

informant/opposite party No.2 was not talaq-e-biddat. Hence, it is submitted that

the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned

counsel for the informant/opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer

for grant of anticipatory bail and submit that the meaning of Talaq as

mentioned in Section 2 (c) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on

Marriage) Act, 2019 is not only confined to talaq-e-biddat but in addition to that

it also includes as has been mentioned under Section 2 (c) of the Muslim

Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 any other similar form of

Talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by

a Muslim husband and it is not even disputed by the petitioner that the divorce

is irrevocable one, as even though the informant/opposite party no.2 is ready

and willing to resume conjugal life with the petitioner but the petitioner is

avoiding to resume conjugal life with the informant/opposite party No.2 only

on the ground that the talaq between the petitioner and the informant is

irrevocable one and it is needless to mention that the Talaq came into effect

instantaneously after its pronouncement hence, the act of the petitioner is

squarely covered under Section 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of

Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 and the alleged Talaq between the petitioner and

the informant/opposite party No.2 given by the petitioner is void and illegal

and as the petitioner by showing disdain to law enacted by the Parliament, is

not ready and willing to look-after and resume conjugal life