Case Analysis: Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. & Anr, (2002) | Drawbacks of Unilateral Divorce

The 'Case Analysis: Shamim Ara v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr' deals with the landmark judgment in India concerning the rights of Muslim women. In this case, Shamim Ara challenged the unilateral talaq given by her husband, claiming it was invalid and against the principles of justice.

Case Title: Shamim Ara v. State of UP & Anr

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: Appeal (Crl.) 465 of 1996

Judges: Justice R.C. Lahoti, Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi

Date of Judgement: 01/10/2002

Facts

• In this case, the parties Shamim Ara and Abrar Ahmed were married in 1968 under Muslim Shariat Law.
• The couple gave birth to four sons in the course of their marriage.
• On 12/04/1979, Shamim Ara filed a suit against her husband Abrar Ahmed seeking maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, on the grounds of desertion and cruelty by her husband according to Muslim Shariat Law.
• When the case went to the family court of Allahabad, the court denied the claim for maintenance stating that the divorce had already occurred and as per the Muslim personal law the divorced women are entitled to maintenance till the serving of the Iddat period. Besides that, the court allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs.150/- per month to their minor child for the period of his being minor.
• According to her husband’s written statement made on 05/12/1990 by Section 125 of CrPC denied all the averments made in the application and stated that he gave her the divorce on 11/7/1987 by way of written statement and that they were not husband and wife anymore. He even gave her a house as Mehar (dower) and that therefore she was no longer entitled to any other maintenance.
• Respondent No.2 ( Abrar Ahmed ) stated that he pronounced divorce on the appellant on 11.7.1987 at 11 a.m. in the presence of a person named Mehboob and some other 4-5 neighbours and that since 1988 he did not pay anything to the appellant and children for their maintenance.
• Shamim denied the said divorce and that the said divorce was not communicated to her.
• The divorce given by him to the appellant was a triple talaq and that fact was not specified in the written statement.
• The wife, aggrieved by the family court’s decision, appealed to the High Court.
• The High Court observed that as the triple-talaq was neither uttered in the appellant’s (Shamim Ara)presence nor it was communicated to her, therefore the communication would be completed upon the filing of the written statement in the instant case which infers to make her entitled to claim maintenance till that date, whereafter the alleged entitlement shall cease to exist.
• Therefore, the High Court observed that the appellant was allowed to claim maintenance dated from 01/01/1988 to 05/12/1990 and thereafter her right to have maintenance from respondent no.2 shall cease to exist. The said maintenance which was allowed by the High Court at Rs.200/-.
• Not satisfied with the High Court judgement, Shamim Ara went on to appeal to the Apex Court of India by special leave.
• Therefore, the instant case went before the Supreme Court.

Issue

Determination of Shamim’s Divorce Status: Whether she had been divorced and the said divorce was effective from 5.12.1990 (the date on which it was communicated to the appellant by way of the written statement by her husband ) and the alignment of unilateral instant divorce with Islamic Principles.

Contention of Appellant

• The Appellant contended that the said ‘triple talaq’ divorce was invalid because it was not pronounced in her presence and was not even communicated to her in a timely and proper manner.
• Further, the Appellant stated that since the divorce had not been communicated to her this means that the marital relationship between Shamim Ara and Abrar Ahmed did not cease to exist and therefore he cannot escape from his liabilities.

Contention of Respondent

1. In response to the Appellant’s contentions, the Respondent contended that triple talaq is an essential practice as mentioned in the Muslim holy book and is not contrary to women's rights; therefore, the said divorce stands valid.
2. Respondent no. 2, Abrar Ahmad further contented that he pronounced the said divorce to Shamim Ara in the presence of many people and also the divorce was properly communicated to her.
3. The Respondent also contended that his wife was sharp, shrewd, and wicked, and therefore bringing disgrace to the family.

Observations Made by the Court in Pronouncement of the Judgment

• As far as the cases to date, there was no such text or precedents that the court has observed which provides a reading in any document, be it a pleading or an affidavit, which incorporates a statement made by the husband that he had already divorced his wife on any specified or unspecified date even if that was not communicated to the wife, would stand to be an effective divorce on the date on which the wife get to know of such statement which is contained in the copy of the affidavit/ pleading provided to her.
• None of the ancient holy books or scriptures of Muslims state in its text any such form of divorce that has been accepted by the High Court and the Family Court.
• A mere plea in the form of a written statement of a divorce being pronounced sometime in the past cannot itself be treated as effective talaq on the date of delivery of the copy of the written statement to the wife.

Judgment

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the term ‘pronounce’ means to proclaim/ to utter formally/ to utter rhetorically/ to declare/ to utter/ to articulate, and hence it was held that pronouncement of talaq is required for it to be effective.
• There was no proof as such which can prove that the said talaq took place on 11/07/1987.
• The only clear thing is communication to the wife was made by delivering a copy of the written statement of divorce was made on 05/12/1990.
• The Hon’ble Court stated that a mere plea of divorce in a written statement or the form of an affidavit was insufficient proof to constitute a divorce and stated that unilateral instant divorce contradicts Islamic principles which require divorce when the wife’s disobedience makes the marriage unstable. The burden of proof is on the part of the husband to present evidence and prove the pronouncement of talaq done by him on 11/07/1987 and if he fails in evidencing the plea raised in the written statement, the plea stands failed.
• Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and held that neither the marriage between the parties stood dissolved on 05/12/1990 nor does the liability of Respondent no.2 i.e., Abrar Ahmed, to pay maintenance came to an end on that day(05/12/1990). Respondent No. 2 will continue to remain liable for payment of maintenance until the obligation comes to an end in consonance with the agreement executed within the parameters of the law. In other words, the liability of maintenance was continued until it is lawfully terminated The costs of appeal will also be paid by Abrar Ahmed.

Analysis

India is a country of unity in diversity where there is a presence of different religions and each religion has its customs and principles. Muslim law, in its application in India, is widely wrongly interpreted. people have taken down their version of the law which is contrary to the spirit of what the Prophet or the Holy Quran laid down.

A Shariat tradition allows a Muslim man to divorce his wife by simply stating the word ‘divorce’ three times in a row which is commonly known as Tripple Talaq. But the correct law of talaq as meant by the Quran was that the Talaq must be pronounced for a reasonable cause which must be preceded by an attempt of reconciliation. According to Mulla’s commentary on Mahomedan Law, if a man states that he has divorced her wife earlier, it leads to a divorce between them, even if there is no proof of the same to validate.

This case was a landmark victory for Muslim women for two reasons, firstly, it aligned with liberal laws as of other religious personal laws and secondly, it brings a true interpretation of the Holy Quran. Before this decision, the women used to live in complete fear and at the complete mercy of their husbands in the context of divorce.

The uncodified nature of Muslim law bars the Indian courts from taking any stringent or autonomous decisions for matters relating to the violation and protection of women's rights concerning divorce in comparison to the codified nature of other personal laws of the country which are subjected to time to time with necessary amendments as per the requirement of that time to bring in consistency, uniformity, equality and serving the justice.

However, Islamic Law gives Muslim males unrestrained power over marriage but it expressly restricts a man from ending a marriage as long as the women follow him. When all the efforts of settlement fail then only option for dissolution of marriage shall be opted.

The contention by the husband that his wife being shrewd, sharp & mischievous brought disgrace to the family was rejected by the Court. Neither any proof of reconciliation was brought. By the ordinance of the Quran, the judgment is proved to be sound & proper.

But still, the main question of arbitrary and unilateral divorces remains unanswered. The question of law in this case i.e., what would amount to a pronouncement is an extremely important concept in Muslim marriages and thus requires to be decided upon, but the discussions of the validity of arbitrary and unilateral divorces on the notion of the husbands which does not have any binding nature, is equal or more crucial to focus on. Moreover, this question of the invalidity of such unilateral divorces is generally ignored.

While the Court may have addressed a specific aspect of Muslim divorce laws, their lack of consciousness regarding other relevant and important divorce matters in Muslim Law serves as a dissimilar illustration of the complicated nature of divorce regulation in India. This case paved the way for the ban and illegalization of Triple Talaq in 2018 but failed to judge itself on the parameters of equality and only acknowledged on liberalization of the process of law.

Conclusion

• In our country Marriage is a pure relationship between two individuals which should not be subject to any conditions but a lifetime bond to hold upon. But people generally fail to understand this basic thing therefore ‘it is not the marriage that fails, it is people that fail’. Allowing men to divorce their wives by simply pronouncing Talaq without due reason or efforts of reconciliation is an insult to this relationship.
• The Court has recognized the demand for gender justice & laid down several strong precedents for atrocities arising due to the practice of triple divorce and protecting financial security by way of allowing them to receive maintenance from their husband, who is under responsibility for performing the said duty.

Cases Referred

Some important cases discussed under this case are:

1. Pathayi v. Moideen

2. Sri Jiauddin Ahmed v. Mrs. Anwara Begum

3. Yousuf Rawther v. Sowramma

4. Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain