SC Rules Sharia Court, Katzes has no legal status; granted maintenance to Muslim women

The Supreme Court of India declared that rulings or declarations of institutions such as “Kazi Court”, “(darul kaja)kajiyat” or “Sharia Court” cannot be enforced against any citizen under Indian law without legal weight.The ruling was filed in the decision of an appeal by Muslim women to seek protection from their husbands. The man earlier obtained the attack from Taraknama through a religious institution in Bhopal and used it to oppose his payment obligations. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that such forums are not recognized in Indian law and that their statements are legally unenforceable.
“‘Kazi’s Court,’ (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat’s Court,’ Islamic Court,’ Islamic Court,’ etc., neither legally recognized,”The bench of Justices sudhanshu dhulia and ahsanuddin amanullah said that the vishan lochan lochan lochan lochan lochan voteon before 2014 mentioned Ahsanuddin Amanullah. The court noted: “Any declaration/decision marked with any name is not binding on anyone and cannot be enforced by resorting to any mandatory measures. ”
The bench added: “The only way to such a statement/decision can withstand scrutiny in the eyes of the law, which may be when the affected party accepts that statement/decision through its action or accepting it, when such an action does not conflict with any other law, even then, such a declaration/decision, at best, can only choose to be on/choose the same party rather than the third party, at best.

Tarak, dowry and controversial separation

The couple was in their second marriage when they got married in 2002. The husband is employed by the Border Security Force (BSF), and the woman has two children together. But the marriage became sore. In 2005, her husband applied for divorce at the “Kazi Court” in Bhopal. This attempt ended with a compromise on November 22, 2005, and both agreed to live together.

However, the relationship deteriorated further. The woman claimed her husband beat her up and demanded a dowry (including a motorcycle and Rs 50,000), which eventually forced her and her children to leave the house in May 2008. The husband then sought divorce again, this time in court after September 2008 (darul kaja), where she visited a woman in January, January, January, January, January, January, January, and January, accompanied by a woman. for their two children. The court granted maintenance only to the children and noted that the woman left her will’s marriage residence without sufficient reasons. It further argues that since this is their second marriage, it is impossible to ask for a dowry. The Allahabad High Court upheld the decision in 2018, saying her separation lacked grounds and the Family Court’s findings were not justified.

The Supreme Court intervenes to convene flawed assumptions

The Supreme Court rejected the lower court’s reasoning, pointing out that the 2005 compromise was merely pointing out that the couple decided to live together without complaining to each other. It says this does not deny the effective basis for women’s maintenance.

The bench specifically criticized the family court’s assumption that dowry cannot be claimed in a second marriage. The appellant argued in an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the second defendant (husband) had caused abuse to her because she could not meet his request for motorcycles and Rs 50,000. In this regard, the Family Court pointed out in this regard that due to his second marriage, his marriage may be subject to his second marriage, because his willingness to work hard for it, because he will rely on his housework, because he will rely on his homeland, because his housework is certain. The law stipulates that it is based solely on conjecture and speculation. ”

It further warns not to go beyond the judicial role. “Family courts will do well from now on to keep in mind the observations of Nagarathinam v. State that ‘the court is not an institution of moral and moral society’,” the Supreme Court said.

Maintaining the grant, strengthening legal clarity

Reversing the earlier order, the court granted the woman Rs 4,000 per month maintenance from the date she initially filed her petition. The husband was also instructed to continue financially supporting the children until they were adults.

Although centered on personal disputes, the case reiterates a broader constitutional principle: religious arbitration or declarations cannot replace or cover India’s legal framework. Although the parties may choose to voluntarily comply with such rulings, they cannot be enforced by the law. When statutory provisions such as maintenance are threatened, Indian courts alone have the right to decide.