Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Then when they have reached their term, take them back in kindness or part from them in kindness"

20. The distinction between talaq- e-ahsan and talaq-e-hasan is that, in the former, there is a single pronouncement of talaq followed by abstinence during the period of iddat, whereas, in the latter, there are three pronouncements of talaq, interspersed with abstinence. In both these forms, there is a chance for the party to be reconciled by the intervention of friends or otherwise. They are, therefore "approved" forms and are recognized by Muslim law. The Division Bench of this court recently in Sajani A v. Dr. Kalam Pasha held that talaq-e-ahsan and talaq-e- hasan are the valid forms of talaq recognised in Muslim Law."

26. What was declared illegal and void by the Apex Court in Shayara Bano and by Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 and made as an offence by Section 4 thereof, was the pronouncement of talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq resulting in instant and irrevocable divorce. The peculiar features of this form of talaq are its instantaneousness and irrevocability. On the other, both ahsan form and hasan form, contemplate a period, immediately after the pronouncement of talaq, whether such pronouncement is only once, or thrice over three successive lunar months, when the husband can revoke the talaq. The declaration of talaq-e- sunnat, either by ahsan form or by hasan form, was neither declared void or unconstitutional by the Apex Court in Shayara Bano nor made penal by Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Both these forms(talaq-e-ahsan and talaq-e-hasan) are still legal and valid under the Muslim Personal Law of India."

As per the text of Mohammedan Law, a talaq may be effected by two modes i.e. talaq-ul-sunnat and talaq-ul-biddat. Furthermore, J-apl1273.23 final.odt 13/15 talaq-ul-sunnat is further sub-divided into ahsan and hasan. For a valid hasan talaq, the conditions are that the marriage must be consummated and pre-pronouncement of talaq are to be made during three successive tuhrs. Furthermore, there should not be any sexual intercourse during all the three successive tuhrs before making any pronouncement. It can thus be seen that there are three successive pronouncements in the present case communicated to the non-applicant No.2 by way of notice by the applicant. Even though, the learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2, the non-applicant No.2 stated that she has not received first notice dated 16.12.2022, it can be seen that the address in all the three notices is one and the same and, therefore, it cannot be said that even though she has received subsequent two notices, she has not received first notice. The contention is, therefore, rejected. In that view of the matter and in view of the law discussed above, we are of the considered view that no offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 is made out since the said Sections prohibit only talaq-e-biddat and not talaq-e-hasan which is the case of the present applicant.