Bombay High Court: In the present case, an FIR was filed against Applicant 1 by his wife, Respondent 2, for pronouncing Talaq to her. Thus, an application was filed by Applicant 1, initially for quashing the said FIR registered with Bhusawal Bazar Peth Police Station, Jalgaon and later, by way of amendment, for quashing the proceedings in a case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal for the offences punishable under Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (‘the 2019 Act’) and under Section 341 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., noted that in the present case, Respondent 2 stated that the notice which Applicant 1 had given on 28-12-2023, stated that Talaq-e-Ahsan i.e., one pronouncement of Talaq, was given to her. The Court thus, opined that only Talaq-e-Biddat or any other form of Talaq, which had instantaneous effect or irrevocable effect of the pronouncement was prohibited/barred as per the 2019 Act, and Talaq-e-Ahsan, which was one pronouncement of Talaq, was not prohibited/barred. The Court thus quashed and set aside the FIR filed against the applicants.
Background
Applicant 1 got married to Respondent 2 as per Muslim rites and customs on 31-10-2021 at Bhusawal, Jalgaon and they resided with Applicants 2 and 3, parents of Applicant, at Jalgaon for about two weeks and then they went to Belapur, Navi Mumbai, where Applicant 1 was serving. When Respondent 2 was pregnant, she went to her father’s house at Bhusawal and during her checkup, she was advised to undergo Sonography and later it was found that there was bleeding and thus, Respondent 2 was advised 15 days bed rest by the gynecologist. Thereafter, on the advise of another doctor, she terminated her pregnancy, without taking the opinion of the applicants. Further, in 2023, Applicant 1 was transferred to Bangalore, and he took Respondent 2 with him and during Diwali, when Applicants parents came to Bangalore, Respondent 2 misbehaved with them and thus, they went back to Jalgaon.
Respondent 2 further gave threat that she would commit suicide if she was not permitted to go to her father’s house. Thus, due to such differences, Applicant 1 on 23-12-2023, pronounced a single divorce, i.e., Talaq-e-Ahsan, in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, he sent a notice of Talaq by registered post on 28-12-2023 and thus, there was no cohabitation or joining of the husband and wife for 90 days and, therefore, as per Muslim customs and Shariyat Law, it became irrevocable and, there was a Talaq between them. It was submitted that this mode of Talaq was not punishable under Section 4 of the 2019 Act and, therefore, the FIR and the proceedings were an abuse of process of law, which needed to be quashed and set aside.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the present FIR was not registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC or any other sections, but the FIR was for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the 2019 Act. The Court stated that if the FIR was to be construed to Section 4 of the 2019 Act, then it was restricted against husband only and Applicants 2 and 3, i.e., the father-in-law and mother-in-law could not be included in such an offence. The Court also stated that there was no question of Section 34 of IPC involved in such FIRs as there could not be a common intention of pronouncement of Talaq. Therefore, it would be an abuse of process of law if the matter was asked to be proceeded for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the 2019 Act against Applicants 2 and 3.
The Court referred to Section 3 of the 2019 Act, which stated that any pronouncement of Talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or in electric form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal. The Court also referred to Section 2(c) of the 2019 Act, which defined ‘Talaq’ as Talaq-e-biddat or any other form of Talaq, which was having instantaneous effect or irrevocable effect of the pronouncement. The Court thus stated that all other forms of Talaq were not prohibited or barred and ‘Talaq-e-biddat’ was the practice of pronouncement of triple Talaq i.e., thrice the words to be uttered, “I divorce you” at one go.
The Court noted that in the present case, in the FIR itself, Respondent 2 stated that the notice which Applicant 1 had given on 28-12-2023, stated that Talaq-e-Ahsan i.e., one pronouncement of Talaq, was given to her.
The Court, after admitting the facts and taking into consideration the law, opined that Talaq-e-Biddat was prohibited and not Talaq-e-Ahsan, and thus, it would be an abuse of process of law, if the applicants were asked to face the trial. Thus, the FIR registered with Bhusawal Bazar Peth Police Station, Jalgaon and the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the 2019 Act and under Section 34 of IPC stand quashed and set aside as against the applicants.
[Tanveer Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 2559 of 2024, decided on 23-4-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicants: S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the Applicants.
For the Respondents: A. D. Wange, APP for Respondent 1/State; Shaikh Mohammad Naseer A. and Shaikh Mudassir Abdul Hamid, Advocate for Respondent 2.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
