Read Order : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/klpl/

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
Coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ.
Case Number: Criminal Application No. 2559 of 2024; 23 April 2025

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 – Section 4 – Talaq-e-Ahsan – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – Validity of Divorce – Indian Penal Code, Section 34 – Abuse of Process.

Applicants sought quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings for offences under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, and Section 34 of IPC, alleging pronouncement of Talaq-e-Ahsan by husband (Applicant No. 1) was lawful and not Talaq-e-biddat.

Table of Contents

Held

Talaq-e-Ahsan, involving a single pronouncement followed by a 90-day waiting period, is not prohibited under Section 4, which targets instantaneous/irrevocable Talaq-e-biddat. Section 4 applies only to the husband, not parents (Applicant Nos. 2 and 3). Section 34 IPC inapplicable as Talaq is a unilateral act. FIR and proceedings quashed as an abuse of process, relying on Mst. Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd. Ibrahim (1981) 2 SCC 509, Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), and Jahfer Sadiq E.A. v. Marwa (2022).

Keywords: Talaq-e-Ahsan, Talaq-e-biddat, Muslim Personal Law, Quashing FIR, Section 4, Section 34 IPC, Abuse of Process.

Facts

Marriage: Applicant No. 1 (Tanveer Ahmed) married Respondent No. 2 (Bushra) on 31 October 2021 per Muslim rites in Bhusawal, Jalgaon. They lived together briefly in Jalgaon, then moved to Belapur, Navi Mumbai, and later Bangalore.
Pregnancy and Health Issues: In April 2022, Respondent No. 2, pregnant, experienced bleeding and was advised bed rest. She terminated the pregnancy without consulting the applicants. In June 2022, she suffered a serious head injury in an accident, leading to brain hemorrhage and prolonged treatment.
Marital Discord: Tensions arose, particularly during Diwali 2023 in Bangalore, where Respondent No. 2 misbehaved with Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (parents). She threatened suicide if not allowed to return to her father’s house.
Divorce: On 23 December 2023, Applicant No. 1 pronounced a single Talaq (Talaq-e-Ahsan) in the presence of witnesses, followed by a notice sent on 28 December 2023. No cohabitation occurred within the 90-day period, rendering the divorce irrevocable per Muslim customs. A final Talaqnama was issued on 24 March 2024.
Legal Action: Respondent No. 2 filed an FIR (Crime No. 124 of 2024) on 15 April 2024 with Bhusawal Bazar Peth Police Station, alleging offences under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This led to Regular Criminal Case No. 1156 of 2024 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal.

Issues

Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, and Section 34 of IPC against the applicants are legally sustainable.
Whether the pronouncement of Talaq-e-Ahsan by Applicant No. 1 constitutes an offence under Section 4 of the Act.
Whether Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (parents) can be held liable under the FIR.

Arguments

Applicants:
- Applicant No. 1’s pronouncement of Talaq-e-Ahsan (single divorce) is a valid form of divorce under Muslim personal law, not prohibited under Section 4 of the Act, which targets Talaq-e-biddat (triple Talaq).
- Cited precedents: Mst. Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd. Ibrahim (1981), Shaikh Taslim Shaikh Hakim v. State of Maharashtra (2022), and Jahfer Sadiq E.A. v. Marwa (2022), affirming Talaq-e-Ahsan as lawful.
- Section 4 applies only to the husband, not parents (Applicant Nos. 2 and 3). Section 34 IPC is inapplicable as Talaq pronouncement cannot involve common intention.
- The FIR and proceedings are an abuse of process and should be quashed.
Respondents:
- Argued that the Talaq was irrevocable and akin to Talaq-e-biddat, banned as per Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017).
- Urged the court to allow a trial to determine the nature of the Talaq pronounced.

Legal Provisions

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019:
- Section 2(c): Defines “Talaq” as Talaq-e-biddat or any similar form of instantaneous or irrevocable divorce.
- Section 3: Declares pronouncement of Talaq (as defined in Section 2(c)) void and illegal.
- Section 4: Punishes a Muslim husband who pronounces Talaq under Section 3 with up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine.
Indian Penal Code:
- Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Court’s Reasoning

Nature of Talaq:
- Section 4 of the Act applies only to Talaq-e-biddat or similar instantaneous/irrevocable divorces, as defined in Section 2(c). Talaq-e-Ahsan, involving a single pronouncement followed by a 90-day waiting period, is not prohibited.
- The FIR and charge-sheet confirm Applicant No. 1 pronounced Talaq-e-Ahsan on 23 December 2023, with no reconciliation within 90 days, as per the Talaqnama of 24 March 2024.
- Precedents (Zohara Khatoon, Shaikh Taslim, Jahfer Sadiq) recognize Talaq-e-Ahsan as a valid divorce method, distinct from the unconstitutional Talaq-e-biddat (Shayara Bano).
Liability of Parents:
- Section 4 applies solely to the husband. Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (parents) cannot be implicated for Talaq pronouncement.
- Section 34 IPC is inapplicable, as Talaq pronouncement is a unilateral act by the husband, not a collective act with common intention.
Abuse of Process:
- The FIR and proceedings lack legal grounding, as the alleged Talaq does not fall under Section 4. Continuing the case would be an abuse of process.

Decision

The Criminal Application was allowed.
The FIR (Crime No. 124 of 2024) and proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 1156 of 2024 were quashed and set aside against all applicants.

Precedents Cited

Mst. Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (1981) 2 SCC 509
Shayara Bano v. Union of India, MANU/1031/2017
Shaikh Taslim Shaikh Hakim v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 757
Jahfer Sadiq E.A. v. Marwa and Ors., MANU/KE/2191/2022

Significance

Reinforces the distinction between Talaq-e-biddat (unconstitutional) and Talaq-e-Ahsan (permissible) under Muslim personal law.
Clarifies that Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, applies only to the husband and not to family members.
Demonstrates the court’s power to quash proceedings that misuse legal provisions, preventing abuse of process.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

What was the primary legal issue in Tanveer Ahmed & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.?
a) Validity of a marriage under Muslim personal law
b) Whether Talaq-e-Ahsan constitutes an offence under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019
c) Applicability of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code
d) Dispute over maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC
Answer: b) Whether Talaq-e-Ahsan constitutes an offence under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019
Which form of Talaq was pronounced by Applicant No. 1 in the case?
a) Talaq-e-biddat
b) Talaq-e-Ahsan
c) Talaq-e-Hasan
d) Khula
Answer: b) Talaq-e-Ahsan
Under which section of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, does the definition of “Talaq” apply in this case?
a) Section 2(a)
b) Section 2(c)
c) Section 3
d) Section 5
Answer: b) Section 2(c)
Why was Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code deemed inapplicable in this case?
a) It applies only to civil cases
b) Talaq pronouncement is a unilateral act, not involving common intention
c) It was not mentioned in the FIR
d) It conflicts with Muslim personal law
Answer: b) Talaq pronouncement is a unilateral act, not involving common intention
What was the outcome of the Criminal Application No. 2559 of 2024?
a) The case was referred to the Trial Court for further proceedings
b) The FIR and proceedings were quashed
c) Applicants were convicted under Section 4
d) The court ordered mediation between the parties
Answer: b) The FIR and proceedings were quashed
Which precedent clarified that Talaq-e-Ahsan is not unconstitutional?
a) Shayara Bano v. Union of India
b) Mst. Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd. Ibrahim
c) Jahfer Sadiq E.A. v. Marwa
d) Shaikh Taslim Shaikh Hakim v. State of Maharashtra
Answer: c) Jahfer Sadiq E.A. v. Marwa
Who among the applicants could not be held liable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019?
a) Applicant No. 1 (Husband)
b) Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (Parents)
c) All applicants
d) None of the applicants
Answer: b) Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (Parents)
What was the date of the pronouncement of Talaq-e-Ahsan by Applicant No. 1?
a) 28 December 2023
b) 23 December 2023
c) 24 March 2024
d) 15 April 2024
Answer: b) 23 December 2023
Which court delivered the judgment in this case?
a) Supreme Court of India
b) High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench
c) Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal
d) Kerala High Court
Answer: b) High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench
What was the main reason the court quashed the FIR and proceedings?
a) Lack of evidence in the FIR
b) Talaq-e-Ahsan is not prohibited under Section 4, and the case was an abuse of process
c) Respondent No. 2 withdrew the complaint
d) The applicants settled the dispute amicably
Answer: b) Talaq-e-Ahsan is not prohibited under Section 4, and the case was an abuse of process

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What was the basis for the FIR in Tanveer Ahmed & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.?
The FIR was filed by Respondent No. 2 (Bushra) alleging that Applicant No. 1 (Tanveer Ahmed) pronounced Talaq, constituting an offence under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for pronouncing divorce and acting with common intention, respectively.
What is Talaq-e-Ahsan, and why was it significant in this case?
Talaq-e-Ahsan is a form of divorce under Muslim personal law where the husband pronounces a single Talaq, followed by a 90-day waiting period (iddat) during which reconciliation is possible. In this case, the court found that Applicant No. 1 pronounced Talaq-e-Ahsan, which is not prohibited under Section 4 of the 2019 Act, unlike Talaq-e-biddat (triple Talaq).
Why were Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (parents) not liable under Section 4 of the 2019 Act?
Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, applies only to the Muslim husband who pronounces Talaq. As Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were the parents, they could not be held liable for the pronouncement of Talaq, which is a unilateral act by the husband.
What role did the precedent in Shayara Bano v. Union of India play in this case?
The Shayara Bano case (2017) declared Talaq-e-biddat (triple Talaq) unconstitutional. The court in this case distinguished Talaq-e-Ahsan from Talaq-e-biddat, noting that only the latter is prohibited under the 2019 Act, thus upholding the validity of Applicant No. 1’s divorce pronouncement.
Why was Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code deemed inapplicable?
Section 34 of the IPC deals with acts done with common intention. Since pronouncing Talaq is a unilateral act by the husband, there could be no common intention involving the parents (Applicant Nos. 2 and 3), making Section 34 inapplicable.
What does Section 2(c) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, define?
Section 2(c) defines “Talaq” as Talaq-e-biddat or any similar form of Talaq that has an instantaneous or irrevocable effect. The court clarified that Talaq-e-Ahsan does not fall under this definition, as it involves a waiting period and is not instantaneous.
What was the court’s reasoning for quashing the FIR and proceedings?
The court found that Talaq-e-Ahsan is not an offence under Section 4 of the 2019 Act, which targets Talaq-e-biddat. Additionally, Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 could not be implicated, and Section 34 IPC was inapplicable. Continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process, as the FIR lacked legal grounding.
Which precedents supported the court’s decision to quash the FIR?
The court relied on Mst. Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd. Ibrahim (1981), Shaikh Taslim Shaikh Hakim v. State of Maharashtra (2022), and Jahfer Sadiq E.A. v. Marwa (2022), which recognize Talaq-e-Ahsan as a valid form of divorce and distinguish it from the unconstitutional Talaq-e-biddat.
What was the significance of the 90-day period in this case?
The 90-day period (iddat) following the pronouncement of Talaq-e-Ahsan on 23 December 2023 was critical, as no cohabitation or reconciliation occurred, rendering the divorce irrevocable per Muslim personal law. This supported the applicants’ claim that the divorce was lawful.
What broader legal principle did this case reinforce?
The case reinforced the principle that courts can quash FIRs and proceedings that misuse legal provisions, particularly when the alleged act does not constitute an offence, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

Tanveer Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra