(i) Whether ‘Triple Talaq’ is unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the

fundamental rights of women in general and Muslim women in particular?

Petitioners:

- Triple Talaq is valid -

- Right to any religion – it is sharia law – coded by islam – rafiq has a right to practice
every custom in his religion.
- Iddat period for maintenance is mentioned in Islamic law so it doesn’t violates article
21.
- Practices should not be questioned
- It is the law from allah

Respondants:

- Triple talaq is invalid

- What makes the triple talaq (instant divorce) laws so difficult, is the fact that they are
not codified and so are open to interpretation
- It is said that sharia law is derived from Allah but its not, its just the customs practices
in Saudi Arabia and near by states.
- Hindu law was totally abolished in 1955-1956 thus muslim can also be abolished.
- Two kinds talaq-in-isaan (one month gap after each talaq) and
- (talaq-in-bidlaath (talaq at one sitting)- valid by the Indian courts. Get case laws for
this.
- Talaq in issan is approved by islam but talaq in bidlaath is disapproved.
- Violates article 21 for the woman and where in quran it says men is superior to
woman.
- Allahadabad hc: no personal law is above the constitution and held its
unconstitutional
Points

- Triple talaq is not an essential religious practice in Islam, as Centre tells Supreme
Court, but is valid in religion.
- Daniel Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740 = 2002 2 L.W 372, requires
that the Muslim husbands make reasonable and fair provision for the
future of the divorced wife within the iddat period.
- Jiauddin Ahmed v. Anwara Begum, (1981) 1 GLR 358, wherein the
learned Judge had held that the divorce must be for a reasonable
cause, and must be preceded by an attempt for reconciliation between
the husband and wife by two arbiters, one chosen by the wife from her
family and the other by the husband from his side.
Notwithstanding any custom or law to the contrary a Hindu married woman shall be entitled
to separate residence and maintenance from her husband on one or more of the following
grounds, namely,-

(1) if he is suffering from any loathsome disease not contracted from her;

(2) if he is guilty of such cruelty towards her as renders it unsafe or undesirable for
her to live with him;

(3) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without her consent
or against her wish;

(4) if he marries again;

(5) if he ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion;

(6) if he keeps a concubine in the house or habitually resides with a concubine;

(7) for any other justifiable cause:

Provided that a Hindu married woman shall not be entitled to separate residence and
maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by change to
another religion or fails without sufficient cause to comply with a decree of a competent
Court for the restitution of conjugal rights.