Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

Supreme Court will hear a petition challenging the legitimacy of "Talaq-E-Hasan".

06 September 2024 5:03 AM

By: Admin


The Muslim personal law practise of Talaq-E-Hasan, which allows a man to divorce his wife by uttering "talaq" once a month for three months, is being challenged in a petition that the Supreme Court consented to list on July 22.

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand brought up the petition before the bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari, and Hima Kohli.

Senior Counsel urged the bench to list the petition, claiming that the petitioner had been served with three irrevocable divorce notices.

Senior Counsel's plea was granted when CJI responded, "Okay, post after 4 days."

Journalist Benazeer Heena filed the Public Interest Litigation suit through Advocate-on-Record Ashwani Kumar Dubey. The petitioner claimed that on April 19, her spouse sent her the first instalment of the talaq via fast post. According to the petitioner's attorney, she received the second and third notices in the months that followed.

The petitioner claims that because only men can exercise it, the practise is discriminatory and asks that it be declared unconstitutional because it is arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. The petitioner claims that it is not a need for practising Islam.

Similar News