'Frivolous, Vexatious': MP High Court Rejects Muslim Man's Plea Seeking Validation Of Triple Talaq Pronounced To Wife
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Muslim man's plea seeking a declaration of divorce through Triple Talaq pronounced to his wife.The bench of Justice Vivek Jain observed that the plea was a 'vexatious and frivolous' inasmuch as no such declaration can be granted as per the law."The suit in the present case is a suit for declaration on the basis of triple talaq and no such...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Muslim man's plea seeking a declaration of divorce through Triple Talaq pronounced to his wife.
The bench of Justice Vivek Jain observed that the plea was a 'vexatious and frivolous' inasmuch as no such declaration can be granted as per the law.
"The suit in the present case is a suit for declaration on the basis of triple talaq and no such declaration can be given in view of the judgment in the case of Shayara Bano (Supra)".
The dispute arose from a suit filed by a husband seeking a declaration that he had legally divorced his wife through triple talaq on January 14, 2015. Per the husband, the wife had subjected him to mental cruelty, following which he pronounced the triple talaq in the presence of two witnesses and later sent the talaqnama to her by post.
During the pendency of this suit, the Supreme Court in the case of Shyara Bano Judgment in 2017 struck down instant triple talaq as unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
After the Supreme Court's verdict, the wife moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that a declaration based on triple talaq was barred by law.
Initially, the civil court rejected her plea in 2018, holding that the Shyara Bano Judgment applied prospectively and would not affect divorces allegedly pronounced before August 22, 2017.
Later, after the matter was transferred to the family court, the wife again sought rejection of the plaint, arguing that judicial interpretation of law is ordinarily retrospective unless expressly stated otherwise.
Facing this objection, the husband amended the plaint in 2023 and changed his stand. He claimed that the divorce was not an instant triple talaq pronounced in one sitting on January 14, 2015, but had actually occurred in stages. First talaq on November 25, 2013, second and third talaq on May 28, 2014.
He argued that the divorce had effectively taken place in 2014 itself and therefore did not fall within the prohibition on instant triple talaq.
The court noted that the original and talaqnama clearly referred only to the triple talaq pronouncement on January 14, 2015. The bench noted that the suit in question is a frivolous piece of litigation seeking a declaration on the basis of oral triple talaq when no such declaration can be granted by the law.
The bench empahsized, "It is settled in law that jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised to bring to an end an an vexatious and frivolous piece of litigation. The suit in question is also vexatious and frivolous piece of litigation seeking declaration on the basis of oral triple talaq and no such declaration can be granted as per law".
Therefore, the relief sought in the plaint is barred by the jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, the bench rejected the plaint filed by the husband while granting him liberty to seek divorce on any other ground available to him under the law.
Case Title: Smt Rubina Kavi v Rizvan Ali, CR-773-2024, Smt Rubina Quavi v Rizvan Ali, Misc Petition 5464 of 2024
For Wife: Advocate Mukhtar Ahmad
For Husband: Devendra Kumar Gangrade