Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Clearly, there is a dispute between the parties with regard to mode of divorce, oral or written, and whether the same was pronounced in the presence of the appellant wife and before witnesses, and if written, whether the same was communicated to her. Moreover, it has been also submitted that the talaq was neither validly given nor proved by the respondent-plaintiff.

11. For the disposal of this appeal, it is necessary to analyze the valid mode of effecting talaq in the Muslim community in view of relevant judicial pronouncements in the country. In Shamim Ara Vs. State of UP, (2002) 7 SCC 518, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Talaq, in order to be effective has to be pronounced. The Court said that plea of talaq taken in unsubstantiated written statement submitted before a court should not be accepted as proof of talaq. Brief fact of this case is that Shamim Ara was married to Abrar Ahmed in the year 1968 according to Muslim Shariat law. In the year 1979, the appellant, on behalf of herself and for her two minor children, filed a case under Section 125 Cr.PC against her husband on the ground that he has deserted her. In reply, the husband filed written statement in 1990 before court alleging that he had already divorced his wife in 1987 and, therefore, she was not entitled to claim maintenance. Upon this, the court rejected wife's claim of maintenance. In an appeal, the Allahabad High Court held that communication of Talaq was completed in 1990 by the husband's written statement filed in the court. But, the Supreme Court held that Talaq to be effective has to be pronounced and mere plea of previous divorce taken in the written statement and delivering copy thereof to the wife cannot be at all a pronouncement of Talaq. Elaborating the meaning of word 'pronouncement', the Supreme Court said that the term 'pronounce' means to proclaim or to utter formally which is essential to effect divorce. The Court said that divorce must be for reasonable cause and it must be preceded after attempt of reconciliation between husband and wife before two persons, one from the side of the husband and other from the side of wife who should make effort for reconciliation.

12. Prior to Shamim Ara, two decisions of the Gauhati High Court, to which specific reference was made, namely Jiauddin Ahmed v. Anwara Begum (1981) 1 Gau LR 358 and Rukia Khatun v. Abdul Khalique Laskar,(1981) 1 Gau LR 375 had already expressed similar view. In Jiauddin Ahmed case, a plea of previous divorce i.e. the husband having divorced the wife on some day much previous to the date of filing of the written statement in the Court was taken and upheld. The question posed before the High Court was whether there has been valid talaq of the wife by the husband under the Muslim law. The learned Judge observed that though marriage under the Muslim law is only a civil contract yet the rights and responsibilities consequent upon it are of such importance to the welfare of humanity, that a high degree of sanctity is attached to it. But in spite of the sacredness of the character of the marriage tie, Islam recognizes the necessity, in exceptional circumstances, of keeping the way open for its dissolution. In both Jiauddin Ahmed and Rukia Khatun, the Division Bench stated that the correct law of talaq as ordained by the Holy Quran, is: (i) that 'talaq' must be for a reasonable cause; and (ii) that it must be preceded by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiters, one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his. If their attempts fail, 'talaq' may be effected.

"Thus, after Shamim Ara (supra), the position of the law relating to talaq, where it is contested by either spouse, is that, if it has to take effect, first of all the pronouncement of talaq must be proved (it is not sufficient to merely state in court in a written statement or in some other pleading that talaq was given at some earlier point of time), then reasonable cause must be shown as also the attempt at reconciliation must be demonstrated to have taken place...."

18. Refering to Shamim Ara and various decisions of the high courts discussed above, recently, in Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India,(2017) 9 SCC 1, the supreme court observed:

"Marriage in Islam is a contract, and like other contracts, may under certain circumstances, be terminated. (But) In the absence of good reason, no man can justify a divorce..... Divorce breaks the marital tie which is fundamental to family life in Islam. Not only does it disrupt the marital tie between man and woman, but it has severe psychological and other repercussions on the children from such marriage."

19. The supreme court noted that Shamim Ara is in "respectful agreement" with Jiauddin Ahmed and Rukia Khatun which laid down that "talaq must be for a reasonable cause and be preceded by attempts at reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiters -- one from the wife's family and the other from the husband's; if the attempts fail, ''talaq' may be effected." and remarked that Shamim Ara is the authority on the point of laying down conditions for valid talaq. Re-iterating and endorsing the law laid down in Shamim Ara, it was held in Shayara Bano " that talaq must be for a reasonable cause and be preceded by (i) that "talaq" must be for a reasonable cause; and (ii) that it must be preceded by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiters," otherwise "this form of Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it."