Private Sharia body cannot determine marital status or dissolve marriage, Chhattisgarh High Court rules; validity of Talaq-e-Hasan left open

The petitioner, a Muslim woman, married Respondent No. 10, Mohd. Abid Khan, on 18.07.2020 after the death of her first husband.

Following matrimonial discord, Respondent No. 10 allegedly communicated Talaq-e-Hasan to her through communications dated 31.08.2021, 30.09.2021 and 30.10.2021.

The petitioner complained of harassment and cruelty, resulting in registration of FIR No. 118/2021 under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC at Mahila Thana, Raipur.

During the pendency of those proceedings, Respondent No. 9, described as the “Idara-E-Shariya Islami Court,” issued a communication dated 18.01.2022 declaring that the petitioner had been divorced by triple talaq.

The petitioner challenged both the communication and the authority of Respondent No. 9 to determine her marital status.

Whether Respondent No. 9, an Idara-E-Shariya Islami Court, possessed legal authority to adjudicate upon or determine the petitioner’s marital status and matrimonial rights?

Whether the communication dated 18.01.2022 had the legal effect of dissolving the marriage or altering the legal rights and status of the petitioner?

Whether the High Court should adjudicate upon the broader constitutional validity of Talaq-e-Hasan?

The Court relied principally on Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India, (2014) 7 SCC 707, which holds that adjudicatory authority must derive from a valid law enacted by a competent legislature; Dar-ul-Qaza, Sharia forums and fatwa-issuing bodies are not courts established by law, and their opinions are neither binding nor enforceable through coercive legal process.

Such bodies may function informally for voluntary conciliation, but cannot determine the rights, status or obligations of individuals or issue binding verdicts concerning them.

The Court further applied the constitutional principle that private religious institutions cannot assume the authority of statutory courts or alter legally enforceable civil and matrimonial rights.

The broader constitutional validity of Talaq-e-Hasan was left open because the issue was pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

Applying Vishwa Lochan Madan, the Court held that Respondent No. 9 was neither created nor recognised by the Constitution or any statute and therefore lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the petitioner’s marital status.

Although Respondent No. 9 characterised the impugned document as merely a religious declaration or communication, its contents purported to declare that the petitioner had been divorced.

Such a declaration could not acquire legal force merely because it was issued by a religious body, and could neither dissolve the marriage nor create, extinguish or alter the parties’ legally enforceable rights.

The Court distinguished the limited question of Respondent No. 9’s authority from the wider constitutional question concerning Talaq-e-Hasan.

Since the latter issue was pending before the Supreme Court, the High Court declined to decide it.

The Court also clarified that its decision would not prejudice the pending criminal proceedings or any statutory remedy available to the petitioner.

The communication dated 18.01.2022, insofar as it purported to determine the petitioner’s marital status or dissolve her marriage with Respondent No. 10, was declared to be without legal authority and incapable of conferring or altering any legal right, status or obligation.

Respondent No. 9 was held not to be a court constituted under the Constitution or any law, and its opinions or decisions could not be enforced by coercive process or treated as binding adjudications of matrimonial rights.

The Court expressly left open the constitutional validity of Talaq-e-Hasan and permitted both parties to pursue remedies before the competent forum in accordance with law.