triple-talaq: strangulation of substantial justice...

1 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW VOLUME 3 ISSUE 9

TRIPLE-TALAQ: STRANGULATION OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IN

THE NAME OF NON-EXISTENT TECHNICAL GROUNDS

Akansha Vidyarthi1 & Keshav Dwivedi2

ABSTRACT

“In the Muslims, marriage is a contractual relationship between the male and female and its get

completed when both the parties pronounce “Qubool Hai, Qubool Hai, Qubool Hai”, then why it

gets dissolved when only the husband pronounce “talaq, talaq, talaq”.”

We are a democratic nation, guaranteeing the protection of equal rights to all our citizens while

boldly holding the flag aloft of being a secular nation. However, underneath all the rosy claims,

lies the cruel underbelly of discriminatory and tyrannical personal laws which tear apart the

foundation of equality envisaged in our Constitution.

This paper explains the various forms of talaq laid down under the holy Quran and the procedure

for the same. It further deals with the unconstitutionality of the practice of triple talaq as it

clearly violates Article 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India and explain that how Triple

talaq is not a part of Quranic Shariat. Next portion of the paper suggests for the Uniform Civil

Code to be implemented for curbing the atrocities which was being faced by a particular section

of the society.

1 3rd year B.A.L.L.B Student at City Academy Law College, Lucknow 2 3rd year B.A.L.L.B Student at City Academy Law College, Lucknow


IS TRIPLE TALAQ IS IN CONFORMITY WITH ISLAM?

Muslim law rests on the four-fold pillars of the fiqh, namely: the Quran (kitab), the Sunnah

(Hadiths), the Ijma and Qiyas. A ‘principle’ to become ‘law’ must find a place in the above

mentioned sources. If the solution of a problem is given in the Quran then it is the final ruling of

Shari’ah. If there is no clear exposition in the Quran, we look at the traditions of the Prophet

documented in the form of hadiths by his companions. If the problem is not resolved through

both traditions of prophet and hadiths, then only is resort taken to Ijma. There is no Quranic

basis to establish that three divorces on a single occasion will amount to an irrevocable divorce;

in fact the Prophet (PBUH) despised divorce and described marriage as his Sunnat. The Quran

lays down only two kinds of divorces i.e. Talaq-Ahsan and Talaq-Hasan the same being in

conformity with the dictates of Prophet (PBUH). These two forms are considered to be the most

proper forms of pronouncing the divorce. On the other hand the third form i.e. Talaq-ul-Bidat, is

considered to be the most sinful, innovated form of divorce as it is against the letter and spirit of

Quran and was disallowed by the Prophet (PBUH) himself.

According to the Quran, a person is not supposed to divorce his wife when she is menstruating.

A muslim can divorce his wife for the period of their iddah and wait for three courses

(menstruation). The prescribed time period of iddah is about three months and in case of

pregnant women, the iddah period is till delivery. During this period, the husband can take them

back if they wish to (reconciliation).Divorce given for two times is revocable but it is not so

when made for a third time. As stated by Prophet (PBUH) and narrated by Aisha “Once a

Muslim woman has been divorced by her husband thrice, she cannot remarry him unless and

until she is married to another man (and such marriage must be consummated compulsorily) and

divorces her so as to free her. It is only after this, she can marry her former husband.”

TRIPLE TALAQ NOT A PART OF SHARIAT OR HOLY QURAN

In India, Triple talaq is the strangulation or violation of substantial justice in the name of non-

existent technical considerations.


Triple divorce is a disapproved form of divorce. It commands neither the sanction of holy Quran

nor the approval of the Prophet. It was also not in practice during the life time of first Caliph Abu

Bakar. Later, Hazrat Umar permitted it on account of certain peculiar situation. When Arabs

conquered Syria, Egypt, Persia, etc. they get attracted towards women there as they were much

more beautiful as compared to Arabian women and wanted to marry them. But the Egyptian and

Syrian women said that in order to marry them, they should divorce to their existing wives

instantaneously by pronouncing triple talaq. The Arabs readily accepted their condition because

they knew that in Islam divorce is permissible only twice in 2 Separate period of tuhr and its

repetition at one sitting is unislamic, void and shall not be effective. In this way, they could not

only marry the beautiful women but can also retain their existing wives. Thus, in order to prevent

the misuse of the religion by unscrupulous husbands Caliph Umar decreed that even repetition of

the word “ talaq, talaq, talaq” ( Triple-talaq) at one sitting would dissolve the marriage

irrevocably.

During Caliph Umar time period, people started reverting back to the wife after swearing to their

intention of giving a single divorce. Thus, Caliph Umar decreed that triple talaq would become

effective, refusing to allow the couple to revert to each other in order to stop people from want

on repetitions of divorce and from treating the matter of divorce in a casual manner. It must have

suited the needs of his own time, but practice in modern times has resulted in a great deal of

harm.

It was however a mere administrative measure of Caliph Umar to meet an emergency situation

and not to make it a law permanently. But unfortunately, later on the Hanafi jurists at the

strength of this instant administrative order of Caliph declared this form of divorce valid and also

pave religious sanction to it. At present much inconvenience is being felt by the Muslim

community, especially women, so far as this law of triple divorce is applied in India.

In Quran there is no trace that the ‘three divorce’ pronounced at one occasion would be treated as

three divorce or irrevocable footing. The Holy Quran only provides the procedure for

pronouncing talaq and it is emphasized that every possible attempt must first be made for

reconciliation between the married couples before the completion of the prescribed period. Thus,

triple talaq goes against the very spirit of procedure of divorce as laid down in holy Quran as


well as Hadiths as triple talaq is a final divorce in which no opportunity is given to spouses for

reconciliation. Thus, in no manner triple talaq is a part of Quranic Shariat.

TRIPLE TALAQ IN OTHER ISLAMIC COUNTRIES

Bangladesh, Pakistan, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Indonesia and Algeria, Saudi Arabia

are some of the countries which had banned triple talaq. But India is not able to abolish the

practice of triple talaq because of the politics of appeasement. Mullahs and maulvis have become

self-styled representatives of the Muslim community who in the name of Shariat violating and

exploiting women of their own community and strives to create a male dominating society.

Mullahs and Maulvies are stuck in a medieval mindset blocking progress of their own

community.

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF TRIPLE TALAQ

Art 14 Right to Equality-“Equality is one of the most significant corner-stones of our

democracy.” Therefore, it is highly ironic that the most abominable aspect of triple talaq is its

inequality. The explicit power of triple talaq given to a Muslim husband is solely based on no

rational basis. A Muslim husband can give divorce to his wife by simply saying the words

“Talaq, Talaq, Talaq” and he is not also responsible for providing any reasons for such divorce.

On the other hand a Muslim wife has to file a petition in the competent court to get a divorce and

also liable to provide reasonable grounds for the divorce which clearly violates Art 14 of the

Constitution. The plight of the Muslim women in the name of unscrupulous misinterpretations of

the Quranic Shariah, with respect to their right to divorce, has been constantly brought out.

Article 15 Prohibition against Discrimination- Art. 15(1) specifically prohibits gender

discrimination and thus, no custom, usage or personal laws, contrary to equality principle

enshrined in the Constitution should be enforced. A Muslim man can marry four women, but a

Muslim woman can have only one husband at a time, this element of personal law clearly

violates Art 15 of the constitution.


Art. 21 Right to life and personal Liberty- The institution of triple talaq is grossly violative of

Right to Life as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once a woman divorced by her

husband who is without any source of income, has to completely stay dependent on her parents

for her survival. This clearly violates Right to live with dignity granted under article 21 of the

constitution. This right has constantly evolved and has now become as something more than

mere survival and animal existence. It extends to finer graces of human dignity, culture and

civilization. One must live with dignity, free from physical and mental harassment and

exploitation.

Art 25 Right to Religious Freedom-Triple talaq clearly violates Art. 25 of the Constitution as it

clearly provides that religious freedom is subject to the fundamental rights. A sharp distinction

must be drawn between religious faith and religious belief and religious practices. The State

protects only one’s religious faith and belief. If religious practices contravenes to public order,

morality, or policy of social welfare upon which the State has embarked, then the religious

practices must give way before the good of the people of the State.

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE V. PERSONAL LAW OF MUSLIMS

The diversity of personal laws and the devotion makes very difficult to achieve uniformity. In the

absence of Uniform Civil Code is absent, it becomes difficult for the government or the judiciary

to intervene in such religious and personal laws.

Mohammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum 3was the first case which stirred up the

heated debate around the Muslim personal laws and the need for a uniform civil code. In 1985

the Apex Court granted maintenance to Shah Bano, but then government reversed the decision

by an order of the Muslim Law Board

In 1971, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer ruled in the Kerala High Court that “the view that the Muslim

husband enjoys an arbitrary, unilateral power to inflict instant divorce does not accord with

Islamic injunctions… Indeed, a deeper study of the subject discloses a surprisingly rational,

realistic and modern law of divorce… It is a popular fallacy that a Muslim male enjoys, under

the Quranic law, unbridled authority to liquidate the marriage. However, Muslim law, as applied

3 Mohammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985 SCR (3) 844


in India, has taken a course contrary to the spirit of what the Prophet or the Holy Quran laid

down and the same misconception vitiates the law dealing with the wife’s right to divorce. After

quoting from the Quran and the Prophet, Galwash concludes that “divorce is permissible in Islam

only in cases of extreme emergency. When all efforts for effecting reconciliation have failed, the

parties may proceed to dissolution of the marriage by ‘talaq’ or by ‘khula’.”

The Uniform civil code still not applicable in India as the maulvis in the name of shariat exploit

women and violate their rights but the question which arises is that when they say that Muslims

should be governed by their personal law in civil matters and not be uniform civil code then why

they should not be governed by their personal law in criminal matters? Why they are governed

by IPC and CrPC, they should be governed by their personal law where for committing theft

their hands should be cut and for committing murder they shall also be killed brutally.

The main objective of Article 44 is obligation of the state to ensure that the citizens are governed

under the uniform code throughout the territory of India. This provision aims to promote unity

and integrity which is mentioned in the preamble of our constitution. Change has been brought

after the codification of the personal laws but the gender inequality has been prevailing and

hence the solution is still pending. The implementation of uniform civil code has been avoided to

protect the religious sentiments of the people and the minorities.

Indian Constitution empowers the state to adopt measures to uplift the status of women. India has

ratified several international conventions and instruments which commit to secure a dignity of a

woman. One such convention is the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

against Women (CEDAW) which India is signatory. Triple talaq is violative of Convention on

Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Under CEDAW, India has

the obligation to enact legislation to protect Muslim women from the unilateral form of divorce and

provide them equal status as men. Under Art 51 India is obliged under this convention to make

special provisions in order to eliminate the discrimination of women . Under article 253 of the Indian

Constitution, the parliament has the power to any law in order to give effect to international

conventions and treaties.

In this 21st century, this has had a great deal of advancement in technology, makes communication

easier and faster. This however, has become a disadvantage to Muslim women as the men to divorce


their wife have misused these technologies. There have been several instances where triple talaq is

pronounced through text message, whatsapp, skype and other modes of social media.

A survey by Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), of around 5000 Muslim women

across India, found that over 90% wanted an end to triple talaq and halala. Of the 525 divorced

women surveyed, 78% had been given triple talaq; 76% of these women had to consummate a

second marriage so that they could go back to their former husbands. No lady can be compelled

to marry another man and consummate that marriage incase she wants to remarry her former

husband after talaq. This condition is humiliating and against the dignity of women as protected

under Article 21.

JUDICIAL TREND

Shayara Bano v. Union of India & ors4 - Shayara, a muslim women was married to a property

dealer of Allahabad Rizwan. Husband used to give a lot of threats to give her Talaq every time

he was dissatisfied with her work or behavior. When she became very seriously ill, Rizwan sent

her to her father’s residence in Uttarakhand. After some time he sent a Talaq-nama to Shayara

from Allahabad. In May, 2016 she approached to the Hon’ble Supreme Court to abolish triple

talaq .Shayara Bano alleged that she only wished to secure a life with dignity, unmarred by

discrimination on the basis of gender or religion Two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held

that there is a gender discrimination against Muslim women by practicing arbitrary divorce and

triple talaq. In August, 2016 the Supreme Court held that the practices of triple talaq under

Muslim personal laws illegal and unconstitutional.

In Rahmattullah v. State of U.P. &Ors5, Justice H.N. Tilhari observed that talaq-ul-biddat i.e.

giving an irrevocable divorce at once or at one sitting or by pronouncing it in a tuhr once in an

irrevocable manner without allowing the period of waiting for reconciliation or without allowing

the will of Allah to bring about reunion, by removing differences and helping the two in solving

their differences, runs counter to the mandate of holy Quran and has been regarded as by all

under Islam-sunnat, to be Sinful.

4 Shayara Bano v. Union of India & ors, MANU/SCOR/33018/2016 5 Rahmattullah v. State of U.P. &Ors, 1994 (12) Lucknow Civil Decision, p. 463


He further observed that the need of the time is that codified law of muslim marriage

divorce should be enacted keeping pace with the aspirations of the Constitution.

In Builders Supply Corporation v. Union of India6 SC has now clarified that the expression

“laws in force” used in Article 372 includes not only statutory law but also custom, usage and

even common law in England.

The principles applied by the Supreme Court in giving liberal interpretation to Article 372 ipso

facto apply to the interpretation of Article 13(3) (b). Article 372 of the Constitution authorizes

the continuance in force of the existing laws even after the commencement of the Constitution. If

pre-constitution Personal laws are not “laws in force”, they should have ceased to operate after

the commencement of the Indian Constitution. The wording used in defining the expression

“laws in force” under Article 13(3)(b) and Article 372 is identical. It is a clear pointer that the

framers of the Constitution did not exclude Personal law from the operation of fundamental

rights. In order to hold Muslim Personal Law violative of our fundamental rights, it is necessary

to bring it under the ambit of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court in Sant Ram & ors v. Labh Singh & ors7 stated that custom or usage having

in the territory of India the force of law must be held to be contemplated by the expression ‘all

laws in force’…to hold otherwise would restrict the operation of the first clause in such a way that

none of the things mentioned in the first definition would be affected by the fundamental rights.”

Personal laws falling outside the scope of fundamental rights is a policy and not a legalistic

approach, a policy which is based on the assumption that the community governed by the given

personal law itself forms a recognized class. When this very class of people dismisses its

provisions as tyrannical and redundant, the personal law ceases to uphold its own integrity.

6 Builders Supply Corporation v. Union of India, AIR1956Cal26 7 Sant Ram & ors. v. Labh Singh & ors., AIR1965SC314


RECENT CONTROVERSY ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF TRIPLE

TALAQ

On 19.04.2017, the Allahabad High Court has termed triple talaq as unconstitutional, observing

that the practice is violation of a woman’s rights. Court observed that all citizens, including

Muslim women, have fundamental rights under the Constitution, and they cannot be violated

under the garb of personal law. Striking out at practices that violate the fundamental rights of

women, Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. held that the human rights of women and of girls are an

“inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights”.

The Court also said that personal law may be applicable only within the purview of the

Constitution, and that a fatwa, which is contrary to the justice system, is not valid. No fatwa can

be contrary to someone’s rights, the Court said.

The Constitution bench heard the matter during the summer vacations of the Court, in the suo

motto proceedings initiated by the Court in In Re: Muslim Women’s Quest for Equality v.

Jamiat Ulma-I-Hind, SMW(C) No. 2/2015 with a bunch of related petitions filed by Shyara

Bano, Afreen Rehman, Ishrat Jahan, Gulshan Parveen & Farha Faiz being merged with the PIL

against the gender discrimination suffered by Muslim women owing to the practice of Instant

Triple-talaq.

Supreme Court: The Constitution bench of 5 judges belonging to 5 different faiths started

hearing the Triple Talaq matter on 11.05.2017. The Bench comprising of J.S. Khehar, CJI and

Kurian Joseph, U.U. Lalit, R.F. Nariman and Abdul Nazeer, JJ is hearing the matter on day-to-

day basis.

Major Questions Raised by SC during 6 days hearing

Why other Islamic countries says that triple talaq is not valid in Islam.

Is the reconciliation after the pronouncement of triple talaq in one go codified?

Is the issue of Triple-talaq prima facie related to fundamental rights?

If Triple Talaq is declared invalid, what will be the procedure available to husband for

seeking divorce? Will it not create a vacuum?

http://blog.scconline.com/post/2017/05/15/arbitrary-exercise-of-power-of-talaq-a-violation-of-fundamental-rights/


Is it like death penalty, which for some is sinful but legal? What is sin in the eyes of God,

can it be valid in law?

Whether Triple Talaq is a custom/usage or fundamental to Islam. Where does it lie,

Shariat or customs and usage?

Court asks to throw some light on Art 15 of the Constitution as to how Triple talaq

violates Art 15.

Is it possible to give bride the right that she will not accept instant triple talaq and

whether the board’s advisory will be followed by the Qazi at the ground

level? Can’t there be a modern and model Nikah Nama to provide for talaq?

Triple Talaq is not a part of Quran. It came later. So if biddat is a sin then why not Talaq-

e-biddat i.e. Instant triple talaq?

If you yourself say triple talaq is the worst form of divorce and sinful, how does it then

become essential to religion?

Arguments on behalf of AIMPLB-

Kapil Sibbal on behalf of AIMPLB pleads that Triple talaq is outside the purview of

judicial review under Art13 of the constitution. He pleads that triple talaq is 1400 year

old practice, so how can it be termed as un-Islamic. The court should not interfere as it is

the matter of Muslim faith and religion. The Muslims are Minority thus, there right

should be protected. The Counsel accepts that triple-talaq is not good but he pleads that

no one should force them to abolish this practice.

Yusouf Muchala on behalf of AIMPLB pleads that AIMPLB passed a resolution on

14.04.2017 which says Triple Talaq is a sin and community should boycott person doing

it. He alleges that A Muslim woman has every right to pronounce Triple Talaq in all

forms, and also to ask for very high ‘mehr’ amount in case of talaq. The judiciary should

not interfere with the personal law as it violates Art 25 of the constitution.

Concluding his Arguments Kapil Sibal says that Only Legislation can interfere in the

matters relating to sinful practices in any religion, not the Court.


Arguments on behalf of Petitioners-

Salman Khursheed pleads that most radical countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh and

many other Islamic Countries have abolished triple talaq but India which is a secular

country is still continuing with this practice and debating over it.

Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani pleads that Triple Talaq violates Article 14 as it gives

the right to terminate marriage only to men and not to women. He says that Triple Talaq

makes a distinction on the ground of sex & this method is abhorrent to the tenets of holy

Quran and no law can allow a wife to become an ex-wife at the fancy of the husband. No

amount of advocacy can or will save this sinful, repugnant practice which is contrary to

the constitutional provisions.

Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi pleads that the Court was looking to the problem from

wrong angle, he said that Issues of Muslim marriage and divorce were separated from

religion in Shariat Act way back in 1937 itself. The matter should be decided on the basis

of fundamental rights of gender equality & human rights under Arts 14, 15, 21 & 51A of

the Constitution. A constitution bench cannot shut eyes to a Muslim woman’s

constitutional rights of equality and gender justice. He argues that the Issue of Triple

Talaq is not an issue of majority or minority. It is an issue of a minority community and

that of women within that community. If Triple Talaq is not present in 25 countries then

it cannot be said to be essential to Islam. Rights governed by Article 25 of Constitution

are not absolute. Sati, Devdasi etc. were once part of Hinduism and were later abolished.

JUDGMENT- DELIVERED SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO MUSLIM WOMEN

The most awaited judgment on the Constitutional validity of triple-e-biddat has been declared by

Supreme Court on the Historic day 22nd Aug, 2017. SC declared the practice of triple-talaq

(talaq-e-biddat) as unconstitutional by 3:2 majority.SC has given Substantial Justice to all

Muslim Women by setting aside Non-existent technical Considerations Majority judgment was


delivered by Justice Kurien Joseph, U.U. Lalit & R.F. Nariman to which Chief Justice Khehar &

Justice Abdul Nazeer dissented.

SEPARATE JUDGMENTS WERE DELIVERED BY-

Minority Judgement- Chief Justice Khehar & Justice Abdul Nazeer

Chief Justice Khehar & justice Abdul Nazeer directed Union of India regarding

appropriate legislation for triple-talaq. They implore the legislature to take into

consideration to this issue of paramount importance and till the time the appropriate

legislation is made, all the muslim husbands are injuncted from pronouncing talaq-e-

biddat. This Injunction shall be operative for a period of six months. If the legislative

procedure commences before the expiry of said period and a positive decision is taken for

redefining talaq-e-biddat as one, or talaq-e-biddat is to be done away with altogether, the

injunction will continue, till legislation is finally enacted. Failing which, injunction will

cease to operate.

Majority Judgment-

1. Justice Kurien Joseph

The Major question considered in this case by Justice Kurien joseph was that “Whether

triple-talaq has any Legal Sanctity?” He cited the Judgment of SC in Shamim Ara v.

UOI in which it was held that triple talaq has no legal sanctity. He respectfully disagreed

with Hon’ble Chief Justice that Triple-talaq is the integral part of religious denomination

and it is a part of personal law. He said that merely because some practice has been

continued for long, does not give it a legal sanctity. The purpose of Muslim Marriage

Dissolution Act,1937 was to declare Shariat as a rule of decision and to end anti-shariat

practices which includes triple-talaq u/s 2 of the Act. Therefore, no constitutional

protection can be given to such practice which is itself wrong in Quran. At last he said-

“What is held to be bad in Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat, i.e. What is bad in

theology is bad in law as well”.


2. Justice R.F. Nariman & U.U. Lalit

Justice R.F. Nariman & U.U. Lalit also cited Judgment of Shamim Ara v. UOI. They said

that triple-talaq is unconstitutional as it is violative of fundamental right under Art 14 of

the Constitution not because triple-talaq is not the part of Shariat. The 1937 Act that

recognize and enforces triple talaq shall be struck down under Art 13(1) of the

constitution to the extent it recognize and enforce triple-talaq as sec 2 of the Act has been

declared void to the extent it is arbitrary. Justice Nariman said that arbitraniness can be

the ground to struck down the legislation by court.

CONCLUSION

The triple talaq is not a essential part of Holy Quran or Shariat. The maulvies and qazies are

exploiting muslim woman and seeks to continue a male dominating society in the name of

Shariat. Since a very long period, they misinterpreted the verses of Holy Quran and termed triple

talaq as an essential part of Quran. Supreme Court after reading the versus from Quran says that

There is absolutely no mention of Talaq-e-Biddat in the Quran, and only two forms of talaq, i.e.

Talaq-e-Ehsan and Talaq-e-Ahsan, are mentioned in the holy Quran. This book mentions that

in every Friday prayers, you say that biddat is bad and should not be practiced by any means. So

the question which arises is that where holy Quran itself says that biddat is bad and sinful then

how can it be the part of Islam.

The question which arises is that Why the Muslim woman are treated like a toy in the hands of

Muslim Man to whom they can use or throw it at their own wish. Where the dignity does lies in

the lives of numerous Muslim woman? How the parliament or the Supreme Court cancan shut

their eyes to Muslim woman’s constitutional rights of equality and gender justice. Are they not

entitled to protection of their rights merely because of their circumstantial birth into a Muslim

family?

The Islamic law is most progressive and should become a model law for all others if our

orthodox ‘ulama care to understand and implement it in its true spirit. Maulavi Mumtaz Ali

Khan, Maulavi Chiragh Ali, Justice Ameer Ali and others pleaded for reforms in late 19th and

early twentieth century but nothing has happened so far.


Now it is for Muslim women to acquaint themselves thoroughly with Islamic law and launch a

movement for reformation in Muslim personal Law. Women in all Muslim countries have

struggled for change and ultimately succeeded. It is therefore, high time that Muslim women in

democratic society like that of India struggle for reform within the Quranic frame-work and win

their rights guaranteed by the scripture. That seems to be the only way left for them. Progressive

Muslim men should also come forward and support such movement for reform.

Thus, the need of the time is that codified law of Muslim marriage and divorce should be enacted

keeping pace with the aspirations of the Constitution, so that the self-appointive leaders could be

removed and a specified family law could be followed without any discrimination.

triple-talaq: strangulation of substantial justice...

Documents