Latest news with #Courtof(DarulKaja)Kajiyat
Time of India
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC rules Sharia courts, Kazis have no legal standing; grants maintenance to Muslim woman
In a key ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that bodies such as Sharia Courts and Courts of Kazi have no legal standing in India. The judgment came while granting maintenance to a Muslim woman whose husband had relied on a 'Darul Kaja' decision for divorce. The bench quashed earlier rulings that had denied her support and criticised assumptions about dowry and second marriages. The court also stressed that personal law cannot override constitutional protections or legal process. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Talaq, dowry, and a contested separation Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Supreme Court steps in, calls out flawed assumptions Maintenance awarded, legal clarity reinforced The Supreme Court of India has declared that decisions or declarations by bodies such as ' Court of Kazi ', 'Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat', or ' Sharia Court ' carry no legal weight under Indian law and cannot be enforced on any ruling came while deciding on an appeal filed by a Muslim woman seeking maintenance from her husband. The man had earlier secured a talaqnama through a religious body in Bhopal and used it to argue against his obligation to pay. The apex court, however, made it clear that such forums are not recognised in Indian law and their declarations are legally unenforceable.''Court of Kazi', 'Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat', 'Sharia Court', etcetera, by whatever name styled, have no recognition in law,' the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, referring to the earlier 2014 ruling in Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India. '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 court bench added, '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 couple were both in their second marriage when they tied the knot in 2002. The husband, employed with the Border Security Force (BSF), and the woman had two children together. But the marriage turned sour, and in 2005, the husband filed for divorce in the 'Court of Kazi', Bhopal. That attempt ended in a compromise on 22 November 2005, where both agreed to live the relationship deteriorated further. The woman claimed her husband beat her, demanded dowry—including a motorcycle and ₹50,000—and eventually forced her and the children out of their home in May 2008. The husband then sought a divorce again, this time in the 'Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat', Bhopal, in September 2008.A month later, the woman approached the Family Court seeking ₹5,000 a month for herself and ₹1,000 each for their two children. The court awarded maintenance only to the children, stating that the woman had left the matrimonial home of her own volition, without sufficient cause. It further held that since it was their second marriage, there was no possibility of dowry Allahabad High Court upheld this decision in 2018, saying her separation lacked justification and the Family Court's findings were not the reasoning of the lower courts, the Supreme Court observed that the 2005 compromise merely stated that the couple had decided to live together without giving each other any cause for complaint. That, it said, was not a valid basis to deny the woman bench was particularly critical of the Family Court's assumption that dowry cannot be demanded in a second marriage. '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,' the bench further warned against overstepping judicial roles. '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 Supreme Court the earlier orders, the court granted the woman ₹4,000 in monthly maintenance from the date she had originally filed the petition. The husband was also directed to continue supporting the children financially until they reach case, while centred on an individual dispute, reaffirms a broader constitutional principle: religious arbitration or declarations cannot replace or override India's legal framework. While parties may choose to follow such rulings voluntarily, the law cannot enforce them. And when rights under statutory provisions such as maintenance are at stake, Indian courts alone have the authority to decide.
Time of India
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Courts of Kazi, Kajiyat & Sharia have no legal status: Supreme Court
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. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now 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. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now 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.
New Indian Express
28-04-2025
- New Indian Express
Sharia Court, in any name & form, has no recognition in law: SC
NEW DELHI: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a 'Court of Kazi,' 'Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat,' 'Sharia Court,' etc., by whatever name or style, have no recognition in law. The Court made this ruling while allowing a Muslim woman's maintenance plea filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bench of the top court delivered this judgment after hearing a plea filed by a woman, Shahjahan, who was challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2018 order. The order had dismissed her revision petition against a 2010 family court decision in Jhansi, which denied her maintenance. The family court had only allowed Rs 2,500 for her two children. A two-judge bench of the top court, led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, stated that any declaration made by such courts is not binding on anyone and is unenforceable by coercive measures. "The only way such a declaration or decision can withstand scrutiny in the eyes of the law is when the affected parties accept such declaration/decision by acting on it 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 it, and not a third party," the bench said. Explaining the legal position, the top court referred to various previous judgments, including Vishwa Lochan Madan versus Union of India. It cited a case where a Muslim man initially filed a plea in a 'Court of Kazi' and 'Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat' seeking divorce from his wife. In the present case, the family court had allowed only Rs 2,500 for her two children. As per records, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent (husband) was solemnized on September 24, 2002, according to Islamic customs, rituals, and traditions. This was the second marriage for both parties. The top court held that maintenance could not have been denied to the appellant-wife under the prevailing circumstances. It directed the payment of Rs 4,000 per month as maintenance to her, starting from the date of filing the maintenance petition before the family court. The top court also said, "A family court is not an institution to sermonize society on morality and ethics." The appellant woman had claimed that her husband had caused mental harassment and cruelty to her because she was unable to fulfill his demand for a motorcycle and Rs 50,000. On this, the family court had stated that since it was their second marriage, there was no possibility of the man demanding dowry, as he would be trying to rehabilitate his household. The top court, after reviewing the family court's observations and order, stated that such reasoning or observations were unknown to the canons of law and were based on mere conjecture and surmise.
News18
25-04-2025
- News18
Sharia Court Has No Recognition In Law: Supreme Court
Last Updated: The top court emphasised that any declaration or decision by such bodies, by whatever name labelled, is not binding on anyone and is unenforceable by resort to any coercive measure The Supreme Court has declared that Court of Kazi, Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat, Sharia Court, etc, by whatever name or style they may be, have no recognition in law, while allowing a maintenance plea by a Muslim woman under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasised that any declaration or 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. The court clarified the position of law while relying upon Vishwa Lochan Madan Vs Union of India (2014) as it found a Muslim man initially filed a plea in a Court of Kazi and Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat seeking divorce from the wife. The bench here was dealing with a plea filed by Shahjahan questioning the Allahabad High Court's order of August 03, 2018, which dismissed her revision petition against the family court at Jhansi's order of April 23, 2010, denying her maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The family court allowed only Rs 2,500 for her two children. The marriage was solemnised on September 24, 2002, according to Islamic customs. This was the second marriage for both. After hearing the counsel for the woman and the state government, the bench noted the appellant-woman contended that her 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 the man, 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. The family court will do well, henceforth, to bear in mind the observation in Nagarathinam Vs State, through the Inspector of Police (2023) that the '…Court is not an institution to sermonise society on morality and ethics …'," the bench said. The SC also emphasised that the family court could not have presumed that a second marriage for both parties would necessarily entail no dowry demand. The bench also objected to the family court, taking note of the 2005 compromise between the couple, opined that it was the appellant's character and conduct which led to the rift in the conjugal life of the parties. '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 clear 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 bench said. The court also dealt with the question of from which date the maintenance will be payable—the date of the application or the date of the order. In the case, the SC noted, the appellant contested the direction of the family court wherein it had made the maintenance payable from the date of the order instead of the date of application. 'Of course, Section 125(2) of the Code empowers the court to award maintenance from the date of the order but the same has to be justified in the background of the attendant facts and circumstances and should not cause unnecessary hardship to the applicant. In our view, Section 125 of the Code is a beneficial piece of legislation which has been enacted to protect the wife and children from destitution and vagrancy and, in the usual course, it would not be appropriate to disadvantage the applicant for the delay in the disposal of the application by the judicial system," the bench said, relying upon Rajnesh Vs Neha (2021). Having noted the husband worked as Aarakshak (Constable) in BSF and earned Rs 15,000 when the application was filed in family court, the bench said it is to be borne in mind that this was the situation in 2008-2009 (nearly 16 years ago) and much water would have flown under the bridge since then. 'We are of the view that maintenance could not have been denied to the appellant-wife under the prevailing circumstances," the bench said, directing for payment of Rs 4,000 per month as maintenance to the appellant, from the date of filing of the maintenance petition before the family court. The court also clarified that the maintenance awarded to the children will also be payable from the date of filing of the maintenance petition. Since the daughter has attained majority, the SC said, the maintenance awarded in her favour will only be payable up to the date of her attaining majority. The court directed the husband to deposit the amount in the family court within four months after adjustment of amounts, if any, already paid. Get breaking news, top headlines, and live updates on politics, weather, elections, law and crime. Stay informed with real-time coverage and in-depth analysis. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : divorce marriage sharia supreme court Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: April 26, 2025, 04:19 IST
