Gujarat: Woman asks court to consider ‘consensual’ triple talaaq as divorce | india-news | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Mar 27, 2017-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Gujarat: Woman asks court to consider ‘consensual’ triple talaaq as divorce

india Updated: Feb 16, 2017 18:54 IST
Triple Talaq

Muslim women protest against the proposal to abolish the practice of triple Talaq in Thane.(PTI File Photo)

Gujarat high court has asked a family court to decide expeditiously the application of a Muslim woman who wanted a formal divorce deed saying that her husband had given her ‘triple talaaq’.

While the couple opted for triple talaaq consensually, the lower court denied a deed of divorce to the applicant Rashidaben Rassiwala under the Civil Procedure Code, saying this kind of talaaq was not legally valid.

Justice Sonia Gokani quashed family court’s order and directed it to decide the application afresh in eight weeks.

Rashidaben married Abbas Latiwala in 2002. From 2010 they began to live separately, with Abbas marrying another woman.

In 2015, Rashidaben filed a suit for a deed of divorce to formalise the ‘triple talaq’ given by her husband. Abbas endorsed her claim that they were divorced by mutual consent, using the triple talaaq procedure under the Sharia law.

The family court, however, rejected the application saying the ‘triple talaaq’ had no legal validity, and she had not furnished a clear proof of divorce.

Rashidaben then moved the High Court, which in its order on January 25 set aside the family court’s order.

“The petitioner lady is educated and is working as a teacher. The husband has already remarried after they separated. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that word ‘talaq’ has been thrice uttered,” the HC said, also noting that it had spoken to the couple to ascertain their wishes.

“They both needed this decree for the purpose of preparation of official documents. In absence of any provision like section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act when decree by mutual consent is permissible...they adopted this (course of action),” the HC observed.