In a significant observation, Justice Anil Verma of the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasised the urgent need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India to address and curb various practices masked as faith and belief while hearing a petition against Triple Talaq.
“It took many years for lawmakers to realise that triple talaq is unconstitutional and bad for society, and we should now realise the need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the country,” Justice Verma remarked while hearing a case involving triple talaq.
The case involved a petition filed concerning an FIR under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and related laws. The petition highlighted societal practices camouflaged under the guise of faith and belief, labelling them as regressive, fundamentalist, superstitious, and ultra-conservative.
The case specifically involved allegations of dowry harassment and the invocation of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, including the controversial issue of triple talaq.
A Bench of Justice Anil Verma stated, “Though the Constitution of India already encapsulates Article 44 that advocates a uniform civil code for the citizens, the same needs to become a reality, not just on paper. A well-drafted uniform civil code could serve as a check on such superstitious and evil practices and would strengthen the integrity of the nation.”
This observation was made while partially allowing a petition from two Mumbai-based women facing charges under the Indian Penal Code, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019, and the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
“There are a lot of other deprecating, fundamentalist, superstitious, and ultra-conservative practices prevalent in the society that are clothed in the name of faith and belief,” the judge added.
“Though the Constitution of India already encapsulates Article 44 that advocates UCC for the citizens, the same needs to become reality, not just on paper. A well-drafted UCC could serve as a check on such superstitious and evil practices and would strengthen the integrity of the nation,” the single bench of Verma observed.
The matter pertained to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, with Justice Verma noting the serious nature of triple talaq. The High Court’s observations came while disposing of a petition from mother-daughter duo Aliya and Farad Saiyyad of Mumbai.
They sought the quashing of an FIR against them filed under the IPC, Dowry Act, and Muslim Women Act, as well as the consequential proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Rajpur, Barwani district, which borders Maharashtra.
Salma, the complainant, had filed an FIR against her mother-in-law Aliya, sister-in-law Farad, and her husband Faizan for allegedly physically and mentally harassing her for a dowry of Rs 2 lakh. Salma, who said her ‘nikah’ took place on April 15, 2019, as per Islamic rituals, accused Faizan of divorcing her by uttering ‘talaq’ three times.
After being abandoned, Salma lodged a police complaint while staying with her parents in Barwani. Aliya, Farad, and Faizan were booked under Sections 498-A and 323/34 of the IPC, Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the alleged offence occurred in Machchhi Market, Chirag Nagar, in Mumbai’s Ghatkopar area, and thus, the Rajpur police station in MP had no jurisdiction to register the FIR.
However, the HC clarified, “It is a settled position of law that ‘ordinary rule’ is engrafted in Section 177 of CrPC by allowing courts in another local area to take cognisance of the offence. In addition, if an offence committed in one locality is repeated in another, the courts in the other location are competent to hear the case.”
The court further explained that if an offence is committed in another jurisdiction as a result of the consequences of a criminal act, the court in that jurisdiction is likewise competent to take cognisance under Section 179.
Additionally, the petitioner’s counsel contended that Sections 3 (pronouncement of talaq as void and illegal) and 4 (punishment of pronouncing talaq) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 apply only to the husband and not to in-laws or other relatives of the wife. The court noted that Section 3 of the Act of 2019 renders the pronouncement of triple talaq void and illegal, while Section 4 lays down a punishment of up to three years in jail.
“Therefore, it is crystal clear that the provisions of Sections 3 & 4 evidently operate in relation to Muslim husbands alone. Therefore, the petitioners, who are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant, cannot be prosecuted for the offence of pronouncement of triple talaq under the Act of 2019,” the HC order stated.
Consequently, the offence registered against the petitioners under Section 4 of the Act of 2019 deserved to be quashed, the court observed.
However, allegations in the FIR related to the mental and physical harassment of the complainant for non-fulfilment of the dowry demand, supported by prima facie evidence on record, could not be quashed, the court concluded.
