NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has said that ‘Court of Kazi’, ‘Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat’ and ‘Sharia Court’ have no legal status or recognition in law and any declaration by them, including fatwa issued by them, is not binding on anyone and is unenforceable.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said SC’s verdict in 2014 settled the issue of legal status of Sharia courts and reiterated its findings while allowing the maintenance plea of a Muslim woman who is living separately from her husband who invoked ‘Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat’ to get a talaqnama.
“Court of Kazi, Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat, Sharia Court, etc, by whatever name styled have no recognition in law. As noted in Vishwa Lochan Madan (case), 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 bench said.
In this case, the wife had invoked the family court’s jurisdiction to get maintenance which was denied on the ground that it was the second marriage of both husband and wife and she was herself responsible for living separately.
Quashing the orders of the family court and Allahabad HC which, too, rejected the maintenance plea, SC said court was not an institution to sermonise society on morality and ethics. Interestingly, the state govt also opposed her plea of maintenance. “In her application for maintenance filed under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant contended that respondent No.2 (husband) had caused cruelty to her as she was not able to fulfil his demand for a motorcycle and Rs 50,000. On this aspect, the family court noted that since it was their second marriage, there is no possibility of demand of dowry by him, as he would be trying to rehabilitate his house. Such reasoning/observation by the family court is unknown to the canons of law and is based on mere conjecture and surmise,” SC said.
“The family court will do well, henceforth, to bear in mind the observation in Nagarathinam v State, that the ‘court is not an institution to sermonise society on morality and ethics’. The family court could not have presumed that a second marriage for both parties would necessarily entail no dowry demand,” it said while granting monthly maintenance of Rs 4,000 to the wife.
About The Author
