Man Apprehending Arrest Under Triple Talaq Ordinance Seeks Anticipatory Bail [Read Order]
The Bombay High Court will soon pass an order on a writ petition filed by a man seeking anticipatory bail after being booked under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7(a)(c) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Ordinance, 2018, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
What makes the case highly significant is that Intekhab Munshi is said to be the first man to be booked under the new ordinance that criminalises instant talaq or talaq-e-biddat.
Under Section 4 of the ordinance, any Muslim man who pronounces talaq-e-biddat or any such talaq which has the effect of instantaneous divorce will be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to three years. While under Section 7, the offence is made cognizable, compoundable and no bail shall be granted to the accused under the Act unless the magistrate is satisfied that grounds for bail are made out.
According to applicant’s wife, the applicant Intekhab Munshi, had sent her a notice through his lawyer for talaq-e-ahsan on September 22, 2018, which is three days after the said ordinance was promulgated on September 19.
According to Munshi’s lawyer Vincent D Silva, two notices were sent on behalf of his client before this date, which were returned with the remarks “left” and “not found”. Appearing for the intervenor wife, lawyer Amin Solkar disputed the claim and said that only one notice was received. Speaking to Livelaw, Solkar said:
“I think this is the first case in India as Mr. Munshi gave his wife talaq-e-biddat 3 days after the ordinance was passed.”
On October 23, Munshi’s wife filed an FIR against him at Manor Police Station. Anticipating his arrest, Munshi filed an application for anticipatory bail which was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, SS Gulhane, Palghar. He then moved high court seeking anticipatory bail again.
The Sessions court, in its order rejecting Munshi’s plea, had observed that anticipatory bail had been granted to him earlier in another case under Sections 498A, 406, 405 r/w 34, 120B of IPC, but Munshi violated the conditions of bail as he failed to deposit the mayar amount, jewellery and other belongings at the police station.
After perusal of the third notice, judge Gulhane noted that Munshi had failed to demonstrate that talaq given by him was talaq-e-ahsan. On the contrary, he said, Munshi appeared to have given her talaq-e-biddat, as alleged by his wife.
The matter came up before Justice PD Naik on November 29 and he posted it for hearing on Monday, November 3. Today, Justice Naik heard both the parties and posted the matter for tomorrow for final order.