& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

GLOBAL LAW UPDATES

Not to examine triple talaq ordinance: Supreme Court of India
THE Supreme Court of India on Friday November 3, declined to assess the constitutionality of an ordinance, promulgated on September 19, making the declaration of instantaneous triple talaq by a Muslim husband of his wife an offence.
The Chief Justice Ranjan Cogoi being the head of the Bench in this petition, reasoned that two months have already passed since the promulgation of the ordinance, which has a life of only six months unless ratified by the parliament.
In other words, the Chief Justice left it to the parliament to debate the legality of the ordinance saying the Winter Session of the Parliament is shortly to commence.
“We don't like to interfere...", the Chief Justice addressed the lawyers for Samastha Kerala Jamiathul, one of the biggest religious organisation of the Sunni Muslim scholars and clerics in Kerala, which had challenged the ordinance.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran said the very promulgation of the ordinance is a “fraud on the Constitution." But the Chief Justice Cogoi restrained the line of argument, saying it was not necessary to "go so high."
The court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea.
The Jamiathul said the only objective of the ordinancee is “to punish Muslim husbands."
The Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance 2018 was notified on September 19 makes instant triple talaq a penal offence
Section 4 imposes a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment when a Muslim husband pronounces talaq thrice consecutively. The offence is cognizable and non-bailable.
“If the motive was to protect a Muslim wife in an unhappy marriage, no reasonable person can believe that the means to ensure it is by putting an errant husband in jail for three years and create a non-bailable offence for merely saying 'talaq, talaq, talaq'," the petition contended.
“It is absurd that for an utterance which has no legal effect, whether spoken by Muslim, Hindu or Christian, it is only the Muslim husband who is penalised with a three-year sentence.
Protection of wives cannot be achieved by
incarceration of husbands... the intent behind the ordinance is not abolition of triple talaq but punishment of Muslim husbands,” Jamiathul, represented by advocate Zulfiker All P.S, contended.
It urged the court to stay the operation of the ordinance while questioning the haste with which the government promulgated it.
The petition contends that the Supreme Court has already declared the utterance of triple talaq "null and void". If triple talaq has thus no legal effect, why should the government go ahead and make it an offence now?
COMPILED BY LAW DESK (SOURCE: KNOWLEDGESTEEZ.WORDPRESS.COM).