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.
