Another shah bano case:HC judgment on ‘talaq’ raises eyebrows in Kashmir

[Ticker]

1. Revoke any law based on religion. A complete separation of religion and state. ONE law, ONE secular law for everybody.

2. Revoke all religious personal laws and cease to institutionally recognize Sharia. Similarly revoke Cow slaughter laws, which are also based on religion and totally ridiculous. All religions will only have ONE law to follow. If they dont wanna follow, they should either emmigrate to wherever they want to, or live their lives in prison.

3. Guarantee religious freedom, and reform affirmative action to be based on financial strength rather than religion or caste.

4. Reform existing divorce laws to include cases of irreconcilable differences etc as valid reasons for divorce. This will ensure more freedom/rights for women and no Talaqs or whatever.

This will ensure modern laws and regulations, no conflicts because of religion as well as guarantee religious and personal freedom for all.

Most of what you said is self contradictory. What you are essentially saying is secularism and religious freedom. I wonder how could these be practiced unless you either disobey the law or the religious beliefs. I posted this in response to your post in another thread. I'll post it here as well ......

The world is full of different communities, cultures, religions, societies etc and the rights of all are protected under the UN charter. However, it is a mere paper which has something written on it and nothing more.

The Mormons in the US have a dress code which is respected though their right to polygamy is not, many US states and many countries have rules which forbid inter-marriages between cousins whereas being in love is an accepted universal phenomenon, the animal rights are protected in many countries whereas they are also slaughtered in large numbers, though humanely etc etc.

There is a difference between enforcement of enacted laws by various nations and the respect due for various communities, religions and groups. When the balance unduly tellingly tilts towards one side, the problems arise and this is the case in most parts of the world.

Many years ago, no one was even pushed as to who wears a scarf and who doesn't, but these days everything even remotely related to Muslims as an entity turns in to a matter of major debate. At most times, this is also related to historical baggage between various religions and cultures.

Those Indian Hindus who are against women covering themselves as per their wishes, surprisingly, also relate it to the invasion of Muslims. They say, it was primarily done to avoid the invading Muslims from abducting their women and therefore, the women were told to cover themselves and now they shouldn't. Incidentally satti also supposedly falls in this category. But both these practices are still apparent in India even today.

I wonder if your opinion is based on what you saw and absorbed while growing up or is it based on a communal viewpoint or is it based on your own thinking - which must have a basis hidden somewhere or in something.

 

[ajtr]

Hopefully someone turns up.
Daniel Latifi v. Union of India

Yes there is mention of this case too in ibnlive story i posted on previous page in along with another case of Shabana Bano.

 

[ajtr]

After divorce/idat period husband raha hi nahi tou maintenance kesi? waise it compulsory to give maintenance while in a legal relationship... even maintenance can be claimed through local council/Qazi.

lakin apko bhi pata hai, hamari society mein asa kuch hota hi nahi...

P.S. Arab society mien phir bhi implementation hai kuch had taj...

Actually i isist that maintenance should be made as the fundamental right for the divorced female keeping in mind majority of them are financially dependent.You cant leave female to fend for herself if she is not earning.Husband-wife marriage is not a like contract as you pay a female untill when she is with you and discard paying her after divorce.In a sense that reduce her to the level of concubine or prostitute. Harsh word but its the reality.

 

[Leader]

Actually i isist that maintenance should be made as the fundamental right for the divorced female keeping in mind majority of them are financially dependent.You cant leave female to fend for herself if she is not earning.Husband-wife marriage is not a like contract as you pay a female untill when she is with you and discard paying her after divorce.In a sense that reduce her to the level of concubine or prostitute. Harsh word but its the reality.

husband and wife relationship ends if divorce takes place that is what I understand. after that its the responsibility of the State, I insist.

 

[ajtr]

husband and wife relationship ends if divorce takes place that is what I understand. after that its the responsibility of the State, I insist.

And how many states pay/or are in positions to pay maintenance to the divorced wives.Unless the sword of maintenance hangs over the head of husband he will go divorcing wives every other month.Putting responsibility of maintenance on state encourages men to frequently divorce his wife.Its not the state that live with wife its the husband who live with her entire married life.And i must insist that you are indirectly reducing that divine relationship to the level of prostitution indirectly committing the sin of calling wife as prostitute.

Another thing in my mind is to ban polygamy among men.One man one wife rule should be enforced.

 

[Sashan]

husband and wife relationship ends if divorce takes place that is what I understand. after that its the responsibility of the State, I insist.

Unless the citizens pay some sort of social security like in western countries who pay for their retirement.

 

[ajtr]

Unless the citizens pay some sort of social security like in western countries who pay for their retirement.

subcontinent main to log basic tax bhi nahi dete to social security ka welfare fund kahan se aayega govt ke pass.

 

[Wickerman]

Most of what you said is self contradictory. What you are essentially saying is secularism and religious freedom. I wonder how could these be practiced unless you either disobey the law or the religious beliefs. I posted this in response to your post in another thread. I'll post it here as well .......

Its not contradictory. Its your understanding that is wrong. Secularism is keeping religion out of the law making process. Currently we have laws based on religion - the religious personal laws. The Cow slaughter laws etc., Which is wrong. Let people pray to whatever God they want to, celebrate the festivals, wear the clothing they want to, eat whatever they want to and go to a Mosque, Church, Temple, Synagogue or wherever. However when it comes to governing the nation, we cant have one group following Sharia, the other group following whatever they please etc., Laws have to be one and the same for everybody. Even if religions like Islam, have laws for governance, politics etc those laws and rules cannot be and should not be followed. We should instead adopt laws that are modern and non-religious. Those other aspects of religion need to be sacrificed by the respective groups for the sake of the nation. This is not a lack of religious freedom, its preventing religion from meddling in governance.

Actually i isist that maintenance should be made as the fundamental right for the divorced female keeping in mind majority of them are financially dependent.You cant leave female to fend for herself if she is not earning.Husband-wife marriage is not a like contract as you pay a female untill when she is with you and discard paying her after divorce.In a sense that reduce her to the level of concubine or prostitute. Harsh word but its the reality.

It should be taken up on a case by case basis. What if the divorce is initiated by a husband because the woman has started another relationship with another man? Then they divorce and this guy that got cheated still pays her? Alimony charges need to be taken up on a case by case basis. We shouldnt be generalizing. Also your argument pre-supposes that the female is always the victim. It is not really the case. They should both get to make their case before a judge, and it should be taken up on a case by case basis.

 

[Leader]

And how many states pay/or are in positions to pay maintenance to the divorced wives.Unless the sword of maintenance hangs over the head of husband he will go divorcing wives every other month.Putting responsibility of maintenance on state encourages men to frequently divorce his wife.Its not the state that live with wife its the husband who live with her entire married life.And i must insist that you are indirectly reducing that divine relationship to the level of prostitution indirectly committing the sin of calling wife as prostitute.

Another thing in my mind is to ban polygamy among men.One man one wife rule should be enforced.

too much burden on men like in USA, result they avoid marriage and whats happening is in front of us.

maintenance as long as couple is married, is on husband, when divorced the divine or whatever relation you wanna call it ends with it. hence state and citizen relationship, hence stipend a solution.

polygamy is a good solution in many cases for example after war, Iran encouraged men to marry more than one wife...

One is enough as Quran says, and personally one is more than enough !! >_<

and the law seeks principle not emotions, cause its to manage the society not the benefit or favour to some individual... that is why I am insisting the state responsibility or like Sashan said social security should be developed.

 

[Leader]

Unless the citizens pay some sort of social security like in western countries who pay for their retirement.

Yar the problem is our family setup, we make our females so much dependent, first on father and than husband that she is unable to stand on her own feet, thats male chauvinism at work thinking if she would be economically independent that means she would be out of control... it is true in many cases, but thats just not right...

 

[Wickerman]

And how many states pay/or are in positions to pay maintenance to the divorced wives.Unless the sword of maintenance hangs over the head of husband he will go divorcing wives every other month.Putting responsibility of maintenance on state encourages men to frequently divorce his wife.Its not the state that live with wife its the husband who live with her entire married life.And i must insist that you are indirectly reducing that divine relationship to the level of prostitution indirectly committing the sin of calling wife as prostitute.

I find this argument pretty ignorant. Lemme ask you a few questions.

1. Who told you that it is men that always divorce?

2. What if the wife cheats the husband? Would you then say she deserves money?

3. What if the couple do not emotionally connect? Or have different goals in life and the marriage was a mistake? Would you mandate that both still live together or divorce and go their separate ways?

4. What if they are not physically compatible and their married life is horrible? What if solutions dont work?

5. What is "maintenance"? Is she a refrigerator ? Just joking, ignore that.

Another thing in my mind is to ban polygamy among men.One man one wife rule should be enforced.

I agree with that. But I hope you dont support polygamy among women

polygamy is a good solution in many cases for example after war, Iran encouraged men to marry more than one wife...

Who is going to war man? What if the women want a polygamous marriage? Why do you advocate that men should have more than one wife, but women get to only share? What about their emotional well being? Would you be able to share your wife with somebody else, and if not how can you support polygamy? Dont women deserve exclusive relationships? What kind of nonsense are you talkin about

 

[ajtr]

Religious leaders term HC verdict on talaq as &#8216;interference&#8217;
Ishfaq Tantry/TNS

Srinagar, November 4
An assembly of Kashmir&#8217;s religious scholars, leaders and legal experts has said the Jammu & Kashmir High Court&#8217;s verdict on the &#8220;validity and absoluteness&#8221; of &#8216;talaq&#8217; cannot be tolerated by Muslims as it is an interference in their religion.

It has agreed to set up a board on the pattern of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, comprising legal experts and religious scholars, to decide and implement decisions arising out of matrimonial disputes and divorces in Kashmir.

The meeting was organised by a hardline and an &#8216;influential&#8217; religious organisation, Jamiat Al-hadees, in Srinagar today.

&#8220;During the meeting, it was strongly felt that the verdict will have grave consequences. The high court verdict is an interference in the religion, which cannot be tolerated,&#8221; a joint statement issued at the end of the meeting said.

The single Bench of Justice Hasnain Massodi while interpreting the Islamic Sharia law had ruled on April 30 that a husband&#8217;s power to pronounce &#8216;talaq&#8217; was &#8220;not absolute&#8221;. The high court had held that divorce was the last resort and could be administered only after the husband had exhausted other options.

During the meeting held on Sunday, it was decided to set up a separate committee comprising legal experts and religious scholars to study and analyse the high court judgment in the light of Quranic injunctions and the Sharia law and to come up with a detailed report on the issue.

&#8220;A board comprising prominent legal experts and Islamic scholars will be set up to decide and implement matrimonial disputes and talaq (divorce) in Kashmir. The board will have also sub-committees at the village and block levels to create a social pressure for implementing its decisions,&#8221; the statement said.

The high court judgment has come under criticism from several quarters, including religious and political leaders. On Saturday, Hurriyat hardliner Syed Ali Geelani had said that rulings made by &#8220;non-Islamic&#8221; courts were not binding on the Muslims. He had asked religious scholars to look into the judgment so as to &#8220;clear the confusion&#8221; created by it.

The court verdict

The high court in its judgment on April 30 had ruled that a husband&#8217;s power to pronounce &#8216;talaq&#8217; (divorce) was &#8220;not absolute&#8221;, observing that it was the last resort which could be administered only after he had exhausted other options
0The judgment was delivered in a divorce case involving Mohammad Naseem Bhat and Bilquees Akhter
The court had held that it was only after the husband had proved that he had exhausted all the options of reconciliation that &#8216;talaq&#8217; would become valid and marriage between the parties would stand dissolved
The court said the husband should have a valid reason and a genuine cause to pronounce &#8216;talaq&#8217; on his wife in the presence of two witnesses

=================================

As Expected.....................

 

[ajtr]

HC RULING ON &#8216;TALAQ&#8217;
Citing Shah Bano case, lawyers, Jamaat-e-Islami seek rehearing
Application to come up before high court on November 12

Citing &#8220;nullification&#8221; of the Supreme Court&#8217;s 1985 verdict in Shah Bano case by the Indian Parliament, the Kashmir Bar association and Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the biggest politico-religious organisations of the state, have sought &#8220;rehearing&#8221; of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court&#8217;s verdict on &#8216;talaq&#8217;.

In the joint application, which is listed before the high court on November 12, the Bar association, Jamaat and five other religious groups have sought &#8220;amends&#8221; to the judgment delivered by a sitting high court judge in a case involving divorce between a Muslim couple.

The single Bench of Justice Hasnain Massodi while interpreting the Islamic Sharia law had ruled on April 30 that a husband&#8217;s power to pronounce &#8216;talaq&#8217; was &#8220;not absolute&#8221;. The high court had held that divorce was the last resort and could be administered only after the husband had exhausted other options.

The filing of a re-hearing application comes a day after a former high court judge, Justice (retd) Bashir Ahmad Kirmani, moved a review application before the court, saying the verdict &#8220;is likely to operate in a wide area, as such, in its given texture requires a thorough second look.&#8221;

&#8220;We have moved the rehearing application under Article 94 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, under which the J&K High Court being a court of records can rectify or review its own errors/judgments&#8221;, senior high court lawyer and Bar president Zaffar Qureshi told The Tribune, adding that they have sought &#8220;rehearing&#8221; of the verdict on three points.

The first point raised by the Bar and other religious groups in their application is that &#8220;the high court being a constitutional creation has no right to interfere in the matters of Personal Law in view of Quran and Hadith (teachings of Prophet).

&#8220;Instead, the court should have decided the case on the basis of the facts and merits, without going into interpretation of Quran and Hadith, which falls under the purview of religious scholars&#8221;, Zaffar said.

The second point mooted in the application is that the verdict will have &#8220;far-reaching consequences&#8221; on the future generations of Muslims.

The third point raised by the Bar in the application is that a similar verdict by the Supreme Court in famous Shah Bano case in 1985 was later &#8220;nullified&#8221; by a parliamentary enactment.

The HC Verdict

The HC in its judgment on April 30 had ruled that a husband&#8217;s power to pronounce &#8216;talaq&#8217; (divorce) was &#8220;not absolute&#8221;

The court had held that it was only after the husband had proved that he had exhausted all the options of reconciliation that &#8216;talaq&#8217; would become valid

Shah Bano Verdict

The Shah Bano case verdict was passed by the Supreme Court in 1985, however, it raised eyebrows among the Muslims in India

However, in 1986, the Congress government nullified the SC verdict by a parliamentary enactment.

It passed Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which diluted the judgment of the SC

The &#8220;controversial&#8221; judgment was delivered in a lawsuit involving Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman and mother of five from Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

She was divorced by her husband in 1978 and was subsequently denied alimony