New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday reiterated that entities referred to as ‘Courts of Kazi’, ‘Darul Kaja’, ‘Sharia Courts’, or any similar bodies are not recognised under Indian law, and their decisions hold no legal enforceability.
A two-judge Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah recalled the 2014 precedent set in Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India, which had made it clear that Shariat courts and fatwas have no legal sanction.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a woman challenging the Allahabad High Court’s affirmation of a Family Court decision that denied her maintenance. The Family Court had based its findings, in part, on a compromise agreement presented before a ‘Court of Kazi’.
Writing for the Bench, Justice Amanullah remarked: “Bodies styled as ‘Court of Kazi’, ‘Darul Kaja’, or ‘Sharia Court’, whatever their label, have no legal standing. As previously held in Vishwa Lochan Madan, any order or directive issued by them is not binding, nor can it be enforced by coercive means. Such decisions may only have relevance if the parties voluntarily accept them, and even then, only insofar as they do not violate any existing law.”
In this case, the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband, both entering into their second marriage, tied the knot on September 24, 2002, following Islamic customs.
In 2005, the husband initiated divorce proceedings before a ‘Court of Kazi’ in Bhopal, which were dismissed after a compromise was reached on November 22, 2005.
However, in 2008, the husband again filed for divorce before a ‘Darul Kaja’. Around the same time, the wife approached the Family Court seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Later, in 2009, the husband formalized a talaqnama following the divorce granted by the ‘Darul Kaja’.
The Family Court dismissed the wife’s maintenance petition, concluding that she herself was the cause of the marital dispute and subsequent separation, and that the husband had not deserted her.
The court also reasoned that, since this was a second marriage for both parties, there was no possibility of dowry demands.
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of this logic, observing: “The assumption that second marriages automatically eliminate the risk of dowry demands is both speculative and without legal basis. Such reasoning has no place in judicial findings.”
The apex court also rejected the Family Court’s reliance on the compromise deed. It found that the compromise recorded in 2005 contained no admission of fault by the appellant-wife. Instead, it merely reflected the parties’ mutual decision to live together peacefully.
Calling the Family Court’s decision “unsustainable,” the Supreme Court noted, “The dismissal of the appellant’s claim was based on misinterpretation of the compromise, and lacks any solid foundation.”
Consequently, the Court ordered the respondent-husband to pay the appellant-wife a monthly maintenance of ₹4,000, with effect from the date she had filed her original petition seeking support.
UNI
