Need for UCC evident, says Madhya Pradesh High Court judge while hearing triple talaq case

Bhopal: It took many years for lawmakers to realise that triple talaq is unconstitutional and bad for society and we should now realise the need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the country, Justice Anil Verma of the Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court said.

He made the observation last week while partly allowing a petition of two Mumbai-based women facing charges under Indian Penal Code, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act 2019 and Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

"There are a lot of other deprecating, fundamentalist, superstitious and ultra-conservative practices prevalent in the society that are clothed in the name of faith and belief," the judge added.

"Though the Constitution of India already encapsulates Article 44 that advocates UCC for the citizens, yet the same needs to become reality, not just on paper. A well-drafted UCC could serve as a check on such superstitious and evil practices and would strengthen the integrity of the nation," the single bench of Verma observed.

"It took many years for the lawmakers to realise that triple talaq is unconstitutional and bad for society. We should now realise the need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in our country," he said.

This matter pertains to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, he said, adding triple talaq is a serious issue.

The HC's observations came while disposing of a petition of mother daughter duo Aliya and Farad Saiyyad of Mumbai.

In their plea, the duo had sought quashing of an FIR against them filed under IPC, Dowry Act and Muslim Women Act as well as the consequential proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Rajpur in Barwani district, which borders Maharashtra.

Salma had filed an FIR against her mother-in-law Aliya, sister-in-law Farad and her husband Faizan for allegedly physically and mentally harassing her for Rs 2 lakh dowry. Salma, who said her 'nikah' took place on April 15, 2019 as per Islamic rituals, has accused Faizan of divorcing her after uttering 'talaq' three times.

Salma, who was since then been living with her parents at Barwani, lodged a police complaint after being abandoned. Aliya, Farad and Faizan were booked under sections 498-A and 323/34 of IPC, section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act.

The counsel for the petitioners claimed the alleged offence was committed in Machchhi Market, Chirag Nagar in Mumbai's Ghatkopar area and, therefore, Rajpur police station in MP had no jurisdiction to register the said FIR.

In its order, the HC said, "It is a settled position of law that 'ordinary rule' engrafted in Section 177 of CrPC by allowing courts in another local area to take cognizance of the offence. In addition, if an offence committed in one locality is repeated in another, the courts in the other location are competent to hear the case."

If an offence is committed in another jurisdiction as a result of the consequences of a criminal act, the court in that jurisdiction is likewise competent to take cognizance under Section 179, the court added.

The counsel for the petitioners also contended that section 3 (pronouncement of talaq as void and illegal) and 4 (punishment of pronouncing talaq) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 is applicable only against the husband and not against the in-laws and other relatives of the wife.

Section 3 of the Act of 2019 has rendered the pronouncement of triple talaq void and illegal, while section 4 lays down punishment of up to three years in jail, the court said.

"Therefore, it is crystal clear the provisions of Section 3 & 4 evidently operate in relation to Muslim husband alone. Therefore, the petitioners, who are the mother-in-law and sister in-law of the complainant, cannot be prosecuted for the offence of pronouncement of triple Talaq under the Act of 2019," the HC order said.

Therefore, the offence registered against the petitioners under Section 4 of the Act of 2019 deserves to be quashed, it observed.

Allegations in the FIR related to mental and physical harassment of the complainant for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, in view of the prima facie evidence available on record, cannot be quashed, the court order said.