As per law laid down by the DHC, Triple Talaq is void in Delhi, and in each case of Triple Talaq, the Talaq would be considered as a single revocable Talaq: Masroor Ahmad v. NCT of Delhi. The Supreme Court will have to just endorse the DHC judgment to lay down the same law for the country. What’s the cause of delay?
P.S. Let me clarify I am not recommending Uniform Civil Code. Rather, I think the Muslim Marriage Law is more progressive than the Hindu Marriage Law. Muslim Law gives the option of unilateral annulment of marriage to both the groom and the bride. The attempts of the courts to maintain the marriages are completely unnecessary. Once a partner has decided to break the relationship, what right can the other partner have? Yes, he/she can demand maintenance if he/she is incapable of earning a livelihood, and, of course, the care and well being of the child has to be ensured by the earning partner/s. Here the Muslim Law is biased towards women by not allowing any maintenance to the groom irrespective of the earnings of the bride, which is not so the case in the codified Hindu Law. At the same time, the Muslim groom has been given the right to marry up to four times, which the Muslim bride doesn’t have, which is a bias against women. The idea of multiple marriages is sound and healthy, but the option of multiple marriages should be available to both the groom and the bride, and, of course, when either the groom or the bride remarries, the other partner can unilaterally revoke the marriage. The concept of dower is obsolete. It can be understood in two ways. First, it can be understood as a compensation for the conjugal duties of the bride. Secondly, it can be understood as a guarantee of maintenance to the bride on divorce. The first perspective is obviously pervert. If the bride has duties so does the groom. The groom’s duties are not restricted to earning money and the wife’s, not to making bed. So, there is no reason to compensate one over the other. The second perspective is obsolete. Women have stepped out of homes and are talented enough to earn their own livelihood. There is no reason to give them upfront guarantees of maintenance. If the need should arise, they should get it, and so should the groom.
Comment Dt. 01.04.2017 (adapted from another post “Early Hearing on Triple Talaq, but Privacy?“):
As far as I understand, Triple Talaq is an irretrivable breakdown of marriage. A similar clause is sought to be added under the Hindu Marriage Act after a long delay. So, I don’t understand how Triple Talaq becomes evil. Yes, the problem with Triple Talaq is that it gives power of the Judge to the husband whereas under the Hindu Marriage Act, the power lies with the Judge — though it’s a different matter that it is too difficult to get the Judge into the mood to decide. So, of course, Islam is biased towards Man, but that’s not only in divorce but also in marriage. I think the concept of dower is the most derogatory thing possible for a woman. People may like to disguise it as bride’s protection, but the fact remains it is just consideration for a contract in which the bride makes the bed and the groom earns the money: if there is any conflict with respect to dower amount, the amount is calculated on the basis of age, pedigree, etc, of the bride, which has nothing to do with her protection needs. And equality of women in marriages is a far cry in Islam, Hinduism, or whatever else. If women want to remain equal, why marry at all?
© 2016-2017 Ankur Mutreja
Featured Image Credit: Mohammad Tawsif Salam