High Court asks State how it is protecting Muslim women
Mehreen Noor and Syeda Hina Fathima of the city petitioned against the triple talaq pronounced by their husbands through WhatsApp message from USA.
HYDERABAD: While admitting the petition filed questioning the “triple talaq” (divorce) pronounced through WhatsApp message, the Hyderabad High Court on Monday issued notices to the secretary to ministry of minority welfare, principal secretary to state minority welfare, principal secretary to home chief executive officer of state wakf board and others concerned to inform about the steps taken to protect the innocent Muslim women from the illegal method of triple talaq.
Justice A Ramalingeswara Rao while admitting the case filed by Mehreen Noor and Syeda Hina Fathima of the city against the triple talaq pronounced by their husbands through WhatsApp message from USA, also issued notices to the unofficial respondents who included husbands and in-laws of the petitioners for filing counter affidavits in the matter.
The petitioners submitted such a talaq was invalid as per the orders of Supreme Court and various High Courts of the country.
The Apex Court in Shamim Ara vs State of UP and the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay and Madras had ruled that pronouncing talaq unilaterally without counselling and without giving reasons was bad in law and in violation of the Constitution.
Petitioners’ counsel MAK Mukheed complained that the authorities have failed to protect the Muslim women whose husbands have sent triple talaq through WhatsApp. He sought the court to declare triple talaq pronounced by the petitioners’ husbands, both brothers Osman Qureshi and Syed Fayyazuddin Hafeez working in the US, through a WhatsApp message as illegal.
The counsel urged the court to issue directions to the authorities concerned to frame guidelines to protect married Muslim women from wrong ways of pronouncing triple talaq. Further, he sought directions for preventing the Qazis from certifying such talaq.
Meanwhile, the counsel for wakf board submitted that the Centre has sought recommendations from the law commission on the above issue, and accordingly the latter was seeking suggestions from the people.
Reacting to these submissions, the judge said it would not be proper to issue any order when the matter was before the law commission.
The judge adjourned the case hearing by four weeks.