Triple talaq law

After the Supreme Court declared the practice of triple talaq or pronouncing talaq inboxed a single sitting as void, the Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage)Act or the Triple Talaq Act. Under the provisions of this Act, triple talaq is void and illegal and the marriage subsists even after its pronouncement. If a husband pronounces irrevocable triple talaq or talaq in a single sitting, he will be punished with a term upto 3 years and fine. The wife is entitled to get maintenance for herself and her children. The offence is cognizable and non-bailable, hence, the police has a right to Arrest and investigate even if the wife does not make a complaint.
The Act in its present form is open to great misuse. Firstly, Muslim marriage is a civil contract, and a breach of it cannot amount to a criminal offence. Again, if a husband is imprisoned for pronouncing triple talaq, then it closes all doors of reconciliation between the couple and the marriage would subsequently end. Thirdly, in families where the husband is the sole breadwinner, imprisonment would lead to the wife and children without any source of income as he cannot earn and provide for them. Fourthly, there are chances that any person with malafide intent can complain against the husband and land him in prison and thereby break a family.
The Act does not give Muslim women any new rights. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, already has provisions for the maintenance of wife and children. The Act is subject to grave misuse and does not protect the interests of Muslim women, rather, it can add to her woes.

Marriage cannot denude a woman of her civil rights

Recently, while hearing the case of a Parsi woman who was denied the right to perform her parents' last rites because she had married a Hindu, the Supreme Court while overruling the order of Bombay High Court, observed that marriage does not strips a woman of her civil rights. The Court observed that the religion of the wife does not merge into that of her husband after marriage. Marriage does not mean that a woman mortgages herself to her husband. Her religion does not merge with that of her husband, only she, on her own volition can give up her religion. The Court observed that when a man who marries outside of his religion is not denied any civil rights then the same should be applicable for the woman as well. The Court also observed that 'the Special Marriage Act was enacted so that a man and a woman professing different faiths can marry and retain their religious identity after marriage. There is no question of merger of woman's religion with that of her husband's. Only she on her own volition can give up her religion..' The Supreme Court in the instant case told the Valsad Zoroastrian Trust to shun the rigidity and understand the emotions of a child towards her parents and reconsider its decision.