Plea in Delhi HC Seeks Criminalization of Triple Talaq was Unconstitutional

The petition has been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking the declaration that the criminalization of triple talaq was unconstitutional and violates the fundamental rights of Muslim men.

Case Citation


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

              W.P.(CRL) 1541/2020

                                       NADEEM KHAN                                            ….. Petitioner

                                                                                    versus

                                       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                ….. Respondents

              CORAM:
                                       HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
                                       HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

Background

The petitioner sought direction from the Pollice Commissioner for avoiding registering FIRs for the offences under section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

The petitioner filed the petition before Delhi HC seeking the declaration that the triple talaq itself null and void then there is no ground for making the triple talaq as criminalization ground.

The criminalization of triple talaq violates the fundamental rights of Muslim men.

There is no effect of triple talaq on marriage as triple talaq is void but treating triple talaq as the criminal ground was violating the rights of Muslim men and is unconstitutional.

The Court Observed

The petition was not like Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the court refused to grant any relief to the petitioner.

The Court further stated that the constitutionality of the criminalization on the ground of triple talaq is already pending before Supreme Court and it would await the judgment.

The Delhi HC stated;

The purpose of Section 4 appears to be to provide a deterrent against such practice. Merely because triple talaq has been declared to be void and illegal, it does not mean that the legislature could not have made the continuation of such practice an offence. This is our prima facie view.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.