'Sharia Court', 'Court Of Kazi' Etc Have No Legal Recognition; Their Directions Not Binding: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that a 'Court of Kazi', 'Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat','Sharia Court' etc., by whatever name styled, have no recognition in law and any direction given by them is not enforceable in law.

A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah referred to the 2014 judgment in Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India,which held that Shariat Courts and fatwas do not have legal sanction.

The bench was deciding an appeal by a woman challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court upholding the Family Court's decision not to award her any maintenance on the ground that she was the cause for the dispute. The Family Court had relied upon a compromise deed filed before a Court of Kazi to make such findings.

Criticising the approach of the Family Court, the judgment authored by Justice Amanullah stated :

"Court of Kazi', 'Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat', 'Sharia Court' etcetera by whatever name styled have no recognition in law. As noted in Vishwa Lochan Madan (supra), any declaration/decision by such bodies, by whatever name labelled, is not binding on anyone and is unenforceable by resort to any coercive measure. The only way such declaration/decision can withstand scrutiny in the eye of law could be when the affected parties accept such declaration/decision by acting thereon or accepting it and when such action does not conflict with any other law. Even then, such declaration/decision, at best, would only be valid inter-se the parties that choose to act upon/accept the same, and not a third-party."

The marriage of the appellant-wife was solemnized with the respondent no. 2-husband on 24.09.2002 according to Islamic customs. This was the second marriage of both. In 2005, respondent no.2 filed 'Divorce Suit No.325 of 2005'2 against the appellant in the 'Court of Kazi'3, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, which came to be dismissed in terms of the compromise dated 22.11.2005 entered into between the two parties.

In 2008, the husband filed another suit for divorce before the Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat. The same year, the wife moved the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance. In 2009, talaqnama was pronounced after the Court of Darul Kaja allowed divorce.

The Family Court dismissed the appellant's claim for maintenance on the finding that the respondent no.2-husband did not leave the appellant and rather, she herself, due to her nature and conduct, was the main reason for the dispute and her consequent departure from the matrimonial home.

The Supreme Court also criticised the Family Court's reasoning that since it was the second marriage of the parties, there was no possibility of demand of dowry by the husband.  "Such reasoning/observation by the Family Court is unknown to the canons of law and is based on mere conjecture and surmise...The Family Court could not have presumed that a second marriage for both parties would necessarily entail no dowry demand." the Supreme Court said.

The Court also noted that even the compromise deed could not lead to any inferences made by the Family Court.

“This reasoning is based on the purported fact that the appellant in the compromise deed had admitted to her mistake. However, from a bare perusal of the compromise deed, it would become apparent that it records no such admission. The first 'divorce suit' instituted by the husband in 2005 was dismissed on the basis of this compromise, wherein both parties decided to live together and agreed that they would not give the other party any occasion to complain. Hence, the very basis/reasoning for rejecting the appellant's claim for maintenance appears to be ex-facie unsustainable,” the Court held.

The Court directed the man to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) per month as maintenance to the appellant, from the date of filing of the maintenance petition before the Family Court. 

Case : Shahjahan vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 495

Click here to read the judgment