Talaq, an Arabic term signifying divorce in Islamic law, holds significant cultural and legal implications within the framework of Muslim societies. This practice allows a husband to dissolve his marriage unilaterally, invoking complex discussions surrounding gender equality, human rights, and judicial responses. The diverse interpretations and classifications of talaq, such as "talaq-e-ahsan," "talaq-e-hasan," and the contentious "triple talaq," have prompted varied reactions from legal systems and courts in Islamic countries.

In this paper I would like to delve into the multifaceted concept of talaq and its corresponding judicial responses. I would also to highlight the procedural intricacies involved in initiating talaq and the subsequent waiting period, often involving attempts at reconciliation and mediation. The emergence of specialized family courts in many Islamic nations underscores the significance of addressing talaq within a distinct legal context.

Furthermore, I would like to addresses the contemporary debates surrounding talaq, particularly its impact on gender dynamics and women's rights. The ongoing dialogue among Islamic scholars, legal experts, and policymakers seeks to align traditional talaq practices with evolving societal norms and global human rights standards.

In essence, in this paper I would like to examine a comprehensive overview of talaq, its typologies, and the judicial responses it elicits. It navigates the intricate intersections of Islamic jurisprudence, cultural norms, and modern legal frameworks, offering insights into the dynamic discourse surrounding talaq and its implications for judicial systems and societal progress.

Finally, I would like mention few case laws which give supportive stand to this topic in this paper.

Introduction
The term "talaq," which is frequently used in Islamic law, refers to the divorce procedure established in Sharia. It is an important component of family law in Islamic law and has drawn attention not just from the Muslim community but also from legal and social debates around the globe.

The Islamic idea of talaq includes both the moral and legal aspects of dissolving a marriage. In accordance with Islamic custom, the husband may unilaterally terminate the marriage by using a particular phrase, often "I divorce you" (pronounced "Talaq, Talaq, Talaq" in Arabic). However, there are differences in practices and processes across various cultures and areas as a result of disagreements about the interpretation and execution of the talaq among academics and communities.

Depending on the legal framework of a specific nation or location, the court's response to the practice of talaq differs considerably. The legal framework around talaq has developed in many nations with a large Muslim population to include both conventional religious ideas and contemporary legal concepts. With regard to matters like alimony payments, child custody, and property division, these legal systems frequently include procedures for documenting and verifying divorces.

Talaq has received a lot of attention lately as a result of discussions about social justice, women's rights, and gender equality. Critics contend that because the practice permits rapid and unilateral divorces by husbands, particularly the contentious "triple talaq," it might leave women defenseless and without any legal safeguards. Discussions on the need for reform and safety measures within the Islamic legal system to guarantee justice and equality in divorce processes have resulted as a result of this.

To address these issues, legislative reforms have been implemented in a number of nations. Legislation mandating a waiting period or counseling before a divorce is finalized has been proposed by some. Some have argued against outright banning or restricting the use of immediate triple talaq. These comments demonstrate the intricate interaction between religious tradition, societal customs, and developing legal ideas.

Talaq encompasses a synthesis of religious, cultural, and legal factors, as does the judicial reaction to it. It illustrates the constant conflict between upholding religious customs and making sure there is justice and fairness in contemporary legal systems. The fluidity of these debates highlights the significance of establishing a balance between protecting individual liberties and honoring religious convictions while tackling modern societal issues.

Talaq in Islamic law

1. Explanation of concept of Talaq:
   Talaq:
   
   • Talaq, an Arabic word, literally translates as "to release." In terms of Islamic law, talaq refers to the husband's denial of the union. A Muslim husband has the unrestricted right to divorce his wife without citing any grounds, making talaq an uncommon kind of divorce.
      
   • Talaq is only permitted in Islam when a woman intentionally harms her husband by her words or behavior or when she does an impious conduct. According to Islamic law, a husband has never been granted the exclusive authority of talaq to abuse.
      
   • Talaq is the most abominable of all things that are authorized to God, according to the Prophet Muhammad, as it hinders a couple's capacity to be happy together and the growth of their children.^[1]
      
2. Different types of Talaq : Talaq-E-Ahsan & Talaq-E-Hasan:
   There are two types of talaq, depending on how it is spoken and how it is applied:
   
   1. Talaq-ul-Sunnat (Revocable Talaq/Approved Mode): Talaq-ul-Sunnat, which is carried out in conformity with the Prophet (Sunna)'s traditions, is recognized as an authorized form of talaq. Also referred to as Talaq-ul-Raje.
      It is further subdivided into:
      
      1. Ahsan (Most Proper):
         
         1. It is most appropriate for two reasons: First, before the Iddat time expires, it is possible to revoke the pronouncement. The second rule is that Talaq's pernicious words must only be said once. These words should ideally not be spoken again since they are wicked.
         2. There is just one declaration made in the Ahsan Talaq during the period of purity, and then three more periods of purity follow without the husband's renunciation. The following requirements need to be fulfilled on this form:
            
            1. During the Tuhr (the wife's purity period, or the interval between the two menstrual cycles), the husband is required to make a single Talaq statement. The period of time when cohabitation is possible is hence known as the Tuhr period. However, if a woman is excused from menstruation due to old age or pregnancy, a Talaq might be issued against her at any time.
                
            2. After this one pronouncement, the woman must observe an Iddat of three monthly courses. The Iddat is still in effect after she announces it if she is expecting a kid at the time. In the Iddat period, the spouse's Ahsan form of talaq is reversible. Both implicit and explicit revocations are possible. The cancellation of the Talaq is an inherent part of living with the wife. If there is even a one instance of cohabitation during this period, the Talaq is annulled, and it is thought that the husband and wife have made up.[2]
                
      2. Hasan (Proper):
         
         1. The bad term of Talaq must be uttered three times in the next Tuhrs.
         2. The formalities needed to submit this form are as follows: It is not the ideal form.

1. In the course of the Tuhr term, the husband just needs to make one Talaq statement.
2. There is a second single proclamation in the following Tuhr. It's important to remember that the spouse has the right to cancel the first and second pronouncements. The terms of the Talaq are rendered useless if he does so, whether explicitly or by starting up romantic connections again.
3. However, the husband must make the third declaration during the third period of purity if there is no revocation after the first or second declarations (Tuhr). When the third declaration is made, the marriage is declared null and void, the Talaq is final, and the wife is then required to follow the required Iddat.[3]
4. Talaq-ul-Biddat (Irrevocable Talaq/Disapproved Mode):
   
   1. A word for sin is biddat. Talaq-ul-Bain, another name for it, is a demeaning and unlawful divorce procedure. Shia law does not accept a talaq that is irrevocable. The only legal system to do so is Sunni law.
   2. According to Ameer Ali, the Omayyad Monarchs created this sort of Talaq because they found the limitations in the Prophet's formula for Talaq to be inconvenient and wanted to discover a means to get past the law's strictness.
   3. Any of the following options are available to a Sunni husband who wants to permanently divorce his wife:
      
      1. In a time of purity (Tuhr), the spouse is permitted to declare three times: "I divorce you," "I divorce you," and "I divorce you again." He can even say, "I divorce you three times," or "I pronounce my first, second, and third Talaq," when making his triple-Talaq declaration.
          
      2. The husband is only allowed to declare once during the purity time that he intends to divorce the wife permanently, using the words "I divorce thee permanently" or "I divorce thee in Bain.[4]
   
    

Judicial approaches to Talaq:

1. Overview of Judicial responses to Talaq in different jurisdictions:
   Different Indian jurisdictions have reacted differently to the subject of talaq (Islamic divorce). Justice has attempted to strike a balance between religious practices and constitutional principles, gender equality, and women's rights in its handling of the complicated and delicate subject of talaq. Please be aware that changes might have happened since then. Here is a summary of court reactions to talaq in various Indian jurisdictions:
    
2. Supreme Court of India:
   In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that the immediate triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) practice was unlawful since it infringed on Muslim women's basic rights. The court emphasized the importance of upholding women's rights and gender equality.
    
3. Various High Courts: Gujarat High Court:
   
   1. The court determined that triple talaq is not a necessary religious practice and can be controlled by the state in the case of Ahmedabad Women's Action Group v. Union of India (2015).
       
   2. Kerala High Court: In the 2012, the court emphasized that the use of unilateral talaq without justification would be contrary to the values of justice and fair play.
       
4. Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939: This legislation has been cited by several courts to resolve talaq-related disputes. A Muslim woman may use the Act's specified reasons to request a divorce from a judge. This has been employed as a tactic to combat instances of arbitrary talaq and defend the rights of women.
    
5. Personal Laws of Different Muslim Sects: While making decisions in court, courts have occasionally referred to the personal rules and customs of various Muslim sects. These rules might affect how talaq is interpreted and used in different jurisdictions.
    
6. Landmark Decisions and Precedents: Several precedent-setting rulings, like Jiauddin Ahmed v. Anwara Begum (1981) and Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001), have established rules for talaq, including the necessity of adequate justification and respect for natural justice principles.
    
7. Gender Justice and Constitutional Rights: The significance of gender justice, equality, and the defense of the fundamental rights protected by the Indian Constitution have been emphasized in several court decisions. These guidelines are frequently applied in an effort to reconcile women's rights with religious practices.
    
8. Legislative Reforms: The talaq controversy has sparked debates about legislative changes to safeguard Muslim women's rights and control divorce practices within the community, in addition to judicial solutions.[5]

Role of religious Courts V. Secular Courts in handling Talaq cases:

Listed below is an outline of the functions of secular and religious courts in India's talaq cases:

• Religious Courts (Sharia Courts or Qazi Courts):Islamic family disputes in India, including talaq cases, are frequently resolved by religious tribunals that follow the rules of Sharia law (Islamic law). These tribunals are frequently referred to as Sharia tribunals or Qazi tribunals. They are religious organizations that offer direction and make decisions based on Islamic beliefs; they are not part of the government. Although these judgments do not have legal force on their own, they have a lot of weight among Muslims.
   
• Secular Courts (Civil Courts): India has a secular legal system that rules all residents regardless of religion, in addition to religious tribunals. For all citizens, including Muslims, civil courts have authority over family affairs, including divorce. The legal code of India, which contains different rules governing marriage, divorce, and family issues, serves as the foundation for how these courts work. The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, for example, regulates the application of Muslim personal law in some circumstances, although civil courts can still decide talaq cases.
   
• Legal Reforms and Debates: The issue of talaq and how it is handled legally has been the subject of extensive debate and legal reform in India. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which made the practice of speedy triple talaq (talaq-e-bid'ah) unlawful, was a notable move. The rights of Muslim women involved in divorce litigation are to be protected by the passage of this statute.
   
• Supreme Court Decision: In the Shayara Bano case, the Indian Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that the quick triple talaq custom violated women's rights and was unconstitutional. The court concluded that talaq-e-bid'ah lacks legal legitimacy and that it is the responsibility of the government to enact suitable legislation to address this issue.

In India, both religious and secular courts deal with talaq issues. While secular civil courts also have authority over such disputes and act within the nation's overall legal system, religious courts nonetheless offer counsel based on Islamic law. Muslim women's rights in divorce cases have been addressed by legal reforms and court rulings. To fully grasp the present situation, it is crucial to check the most recent legal sources.[6]

Evolution of Judicial response

1. Influence of Societal and Cultural factors on Judicial Decisions:
   A complicated and varied subject, the impact of socioeconomic and cultural variables on court decisions in India With a lengthy history and a wide spectrum of cultural, religious, and social standards, India is a varied and culturally rich nation. These factors may have an effect on how judicial judgments are formed. Here are some significant ways that socioeconomic and cultural issues may affect court rulings in India:
   
   1. Religious and Cultural Diversity: There are many different faiths and civilizations in India, each with its own set of standards, practices, and beliefs. When reading legislation and rendering judgments, judges frequently have to negotiate these various points of view. Judges' interpretations of cases involving personal laws, family concerns, and religious practices may be influenced by cultural and religious factors.
       
   2. Traditional Practices and Customs: Many Indian groups still follow long-standing traditions that could be in opposition to accepted legal norms. Judges occasionally have to strike a compromise between prevailing legal norms and these societal expectations. For instance, caste-based discrimination, dowries, and concerns relating to arranged weddings can all affect legal disputes and court outcomes.
       
   3. Gender Roles and Women's Rights: Even though India has seen substantial societal transformation in recent years, court judgments might still be influenced by conventional gender roles and prejudices. Judges' decisions in matters involving gender discrimination, domestic abuse, and property rights may be affected by the sentiments that society has towards women as a whole.
       
   4. Legal Pluralism: The legal system of India is complicated and consists of both formal legal frameworks and traditional or customary rules. When making judgments, judges may need to transition between several legal systems, which might be impacted by cultural and societal norms.
       
2. Comparisons Of Traditional And Contemporary Responses:
   Traditional Responses:
   
   1. Triple Talaq: In the past, it was accepted to use the triple talaq method, in which a husband may use the word "talaq" three times straight to grant a divorce that was final and irrevocable. According to Islamic law, this practice qualified as a divorce, and certain Muslim groups and religious authorities supported it.
       
   2. Limited Judicial Intervention: In examples of talaq, the traditional approach frequently favored limited court action since it viewed the problem as coming beyond the purview of individual religious practices and beliefs. Courts frequently refrained from interfering with religious disputes, and personal laws were granted a great deal of latitude.
   
   Contemporary Responses:
   
   1. Constitutional Scrutiny: The modern reaction comprises heightened constitutional examination in light of India's development as a secular and democratic nation. In order to guarantee that personal laws, particularly those pertaining to talaq, adhere to constitutional values like equality, non-discrimination, and the right to life and dignity, the judiciary has exercised its jurisdiction in this regard.
       
   2. Triple Talaq Ban: The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, which made the immediate triple talaq a crime, was passed by the Indian Parliament in 2019. This was a considerable divergence from conventional thinking since it sought to give Muslim women legal protection from arbitrary and unilateral divorces.
       
   3. Gender Justice: Women's rights and gender justice are prioritized in contemporary legal solutions. Triple talaq is a practice that courts have ruled unlawful because it discriminates against women and violates their fundamental rights. Triple talaq was ruled invalid and unlawful by the Supreme Court of India in the Shayara Bano case (2017). [8]

Case Laws

1. Shayara Bano v. Union of India Case
   Facts:
   Shayara Bano, who was married to Rizwan Ahmed for 15 years, is said to have experienced dowry harassment and domestic violence. In 2016, she received a talaq-e-bidat divorce, which led to the Supreme Court writ action. The petition claims that polygamy, triple talaq, and nikah-halala are violations of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution, as well as unconstitutional, illegal, and against Muslim personal law. Ms. Bano's petition to make these practices illegal was supported by the Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), the Bebaak Collective, the Union of India, and others. The court was even requested to determine whether the Fundamental Rights apply to personal law.
   
   According to the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), because Muslim personal law is not codified and is protected by Article 25 of the Constitution, it is not subject to constitutional judicial review. The Court also lacks the jurisdiction to look into a constitutional justification for Muslim personal law.
   
   The Union of India, Shayara Bano, a number of women's rights organizations, and the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) were asked to submit written statements to the court on February 16, 2017, regarding the challenges and issues associated with polygamy, nikah-halala, and talaq-e-biddat.[9]
   
   Issues:
   
   1. Whether or not the Triple Talaq custom is legal?
   2. Whether the triple talaq is a fundamental Islamic practice?
   Judgment:
   Shayara Bano and others were successful, according to the Supreme Court's five-judge panel. On August 22, 2017, with a 3:2 majority, the five-judge court formally outlawed the Triple Talaq. Triple talaq has been declared unlawful in all of its forms by the court.
   
   The Court emphasized in its decision that many other Muslim countries throughout the world have already forbidden this behavior since it is not sanctioned by the Muslim holy book and was neither supported by nor practiced by the Prophet. According to the Court, the practice was against the fundamental liberties that Part III of the Constitution protects.
   
   The husband might spend up to three years in prison after the Supreme Court expressly declared triple talaq to be illegal in its ruling on August 17, 2017. The Triple Talaq, often referred to as Talaq-e-biddat, was determined by the court to not be an essential part of Islam and hence is not immune from Article 25's prohibition. The court defended its stance by asserting that even though the Hanafi School is responsible for it, they see it as wicked.[10]
    
2. Danial Latifi v. Union of India Case
   Facts:
   Shah Bano, a 62-year-old woman from Madhya Pradesh, filed a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) asking for maintenance. Her husband had given her a divorce in 1978. She was successful in getting the Supreme Court to protect the right to alimony for Muslim women. After the Shah Bano case verdict was overturned by the passage of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986 by Parliament, she was denied financial assistance.
   
   Divorced Muslim women have a right to reasonable and fair assistance during the "Iddat" period, but they do not have a right to ongoing or future maintenance from their ex-husbands, according to Section 3(1) of the Act. A wife who was dependent on her husband before marriage still had a right to life after marriage, according to Shah Bano's legal representative, Danial Latifi, who claimed that the Act violated several constitutional provisions.
   
   As a result of this act, Article 21 of the Constitution is broken. According to Section 125 of the CrPC, the Act violated Articles 14 and 15 as well as other human rights by denying divorced Muslim women the same maintenance benefits as other divorced women. Daniel Latifi submitted a Writ Petition to the Supreme Court in an attempt to challenge the validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.[11]
   
   Issues:
   
   1. Are Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution in conflict with Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986?
   2. Does the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986 follow the law?
   Provisions of the case:
   The Shah Bano case's set guidelines-according to which the husband's duty to provide for his wife did not end with the iddat period-were substantially reiterated in the Daniel Latifi judgment. But in order to do so, it explained that this idea was a reflection of the Shah Bano Act, not a contravention of it. The Act is consistent with Section 125 of the CrPC; hence, there is also no chance of conflict. According to the law, the Act's provisions are built around the guiding principles of the Shah Bano case. The same still holds true and still serves as the guiding concept in situations involving Muslim women's upkeep after divorce.
   In Iqbal Bano v. State of U.P.[12], The concept was once again upheld by the Supreme Court. In this instance, the court decided that the provisions of the Act do not violate Articles 14, 15, or 21 of the Indian Constitution and reiterated that divorced women are entitled to maintenance after the Iddat term.
   
   The court ruled that a woman's right to a "fair or reasonable" settlement under Section 3 of the Muslim Women Act is the sole time her privilege under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code will end. The woman will be entitled to assistance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code up until the husband performs his obligation under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.[13]
   
   Judgment:
   The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench upheld the interpretation that the words "reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband" in Section 3 (1) meant that the husband must pay maintenance to the wife before the iddat period expires and that, in the event he cannot, the wife may recover it in accordance with Section 3(3) of the Act.
   
   However, nowhere does it say that reasonable and fair maintenance and provisions only apply during the IDDA period and not beyond.
   
   According to the Court, a husband has an obligation to support and care for his wife for the rest of her life, barring any subsequent marriages.[14]
    
3. Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan case:
   Facts:
   The circumstances of the case show that the appellant (Shamima Farooqui) and respondent (Shahid Khan) were married on April 26, 1992; however, soon after that, the husband started harassing her and pressing her for the automobile. As long as she was residing with him, he insisted that the automobile come from her wife's family as well. Once, she was made to stay with her husband's parents for three months; however, he never came back to take her home. One day she decides to go back to her husband's house in the hope that everything will be well and that her love and devotion will be reciprocated, but she was wrong.
   
   She was humiliated and physically assaulted by her husband when she returned to his home, and she also learned that he was planning to marry her despite having an adulterous affair with another woman. She was tormented and harassed again because she had asked her parents for a car. She contacts her parents and asks them to take her home because this was her limit. Her parents picked her up and drove her to their Lucknow home. Following that, she submitted an application for her husband to award her support. As her husband held the position of Nayak in the Army and had a salary of Rs. 10,000 as well as other benefits, she fixed maintenance at Rs. 4,000 each month.[15]
   
   Issues:
   
   1. Whether the High Court's decision to lower the respondent's maintenance allowance after his retirement was upheld?
   2. Whether Shahid Khan is accountable for having an extramarital relationship?
   Judgment:
   
   1. The respondent cannot possibly exist on less than Rs. 2,000 per month in the current economic climate, Justice Deepak Mishra ruled in his decision. A woman who is forced to leave the marital home shouldn't be made to feel that she has to be fed because she has fallen out of favor.
       
   2. The constitution gives her the right to live just as she would in her husband's home. If it is found that the woman is entitled to support pursuant to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the maintenance awarded should be sufficient to enable the woman to live in peace, as she would have in her married home.
       
   3. The spouse will claim that since he is unemployed or because his business is struggling, he does not have the money to make the payment. These are essentially feeble defenses that are never going to hold up in a court of law. The spouse has a duty to support the family.
       
   4. If he is able to earn a living, he cannot claim that he is unable to provide for his wife because of financial difficulties.
       
   5. The fact that the spouse had retired did not necessitate halving the amount of maintenance required. The wife did not merit a decrease because the amount was not too high. It just shows a lack of mental effort. This court could not uphold the abovementioned ruling as a result.[16]
       
4. Mohd. Ahmed Khan V. Shah Bano Begum and Others case:
   Facts:
   Shah Bano Begum, the respondent, who is a lawyer by profession, married Mohd Ahmed Khan, the appealing party, in 1932. Three sons and two girls were the offspring of this relationship. In 1975, when Shah Bano was 62 years old and her husband had abandoned her, she and her children were expelled from their marital home. She filed an appeal in 1978 before the Judicial Magistrate of Indore because she refused to pay the support of Rs. 200 per month that he had promised. She demanded Rs. 500 each month in upkeep. She received an irrevocable triple talaq from her husband on November 6th, 1978, which he then used as a pretext to discontinue providing support. The judge mandated maintenance payments of 25 rupees per month in August 1979. Shah Bano submitted a plea to the M.P. High Court in July 1908, requesting that the maintenance payment be adjusted to Rs. 179 per month. The High Court increased the monthly maintenance to the desired amount, or Rs. 179. The spouse filed a special leave petition with the Supreme Court, appealing the decision of the High Court.[17]
   
   Issues:
   
   1. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (II of 1974) whether a divorced Muslim lady falls under the "WIFE" definition?
   2. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (II of 1974) Does it supersede personal law if so?
   
   Provisions of the case:
   In the case of Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain[18], it was held that a woman who had previously received a dower payment was not entitled to extra maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC since the dower payment fits under the description of "sum payable" as stated under Section 127(3)(b) of the CrPC.[19]
   
   In the following case, Fuzlunbi v. K. Khader Vali, [20]it was determined that the husband would not be freed from paying any further payments until it was determined that the amount of mehr was sufficient.[21]
   
   Judgment:
   
   • Ahmed Khan's appeal was turned down by C.J., Y.C. Chandrachud, and this ruling was made.
   • The Supreme Court found that Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to Muslims without any kind of discrimination because it does so for all citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation. The court also decided that Section 125 will take precedence over personal law if there is a conflict between the two.
      
   • It is made clear that the requirements of Section 125 and the Muslim Personal Law on the Muslim husband's need to provide maintenance for a divorced wife who is unable to maintain herself do not conflict with one another.
      
   • The Supreme Court correctly decided in this case that since a Muslim husband's obligation to a divorced wife is limited to the "Iddat" period and because this circumstance is exempt from the provisions of Section 125 of the CrPc., 1973, the husband's duty to support the wife extends past the iddat period in the event that she lacks the means to do so. The court continued by stating that this clause was unsuitable or against humanity under Muslim law in this instance since a divorced lady was unable to maintain herself.
      
   • The husband's payment of Mehar in the event of a divorce is inadequate to release him from the obligation to provide for the wife.
      
   • The Supreme Court finally decided, after a drawn-out legal procedure, that the husband's obligation ends if a divorced woman is capable of providing for herself. The situation will be reversed, though, if the woman is unable to support herself after the Iddat period and is eligible for alimony or maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.[22]
      
5. Shamim Ara V. State of U.P. Case:
   Facts:
   The appellants, Abrar Ahmed and Shamim Ara, were wed in 1968 under Muslim Shariyat Law. There were four sons born to unmarried moms. The appellant and her two young children filed a complaint under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code on April 12, 1979, saying that their spouse had abandoned them and treated them poorly. The appellant's spouse claimed in a written declaration that he had divorced her on July 11, 1997. The sitting judge of the family court in Allahabad declined to provide the appellant any assistance because the respondent and the appellant already divorced on July 11, 1997.
   
   Since he was still a minor, only one of her children qualified for support of Rs. 150. The appellant claimed she had never been divorced and requested a revision before the High Court. According to the High Court of Allahabad, the respondent did not formally dissolve the presumed divorce until 1990, when she filed a written declaration in support of her appeal. The appellant met the requirements to submit a claim for support for the years 1988 to 1990. The High Court authorized Rs. 200 as the maintenance payment. The appellant submitted a request for special leave to the Supreme Court.[23]
   
   Issues:
   • Whether the respondent may be considered to have divorced the appellant, and whether the divorce has been announced and has taken effect as of 5.12.1990, the day the respondent made the written statement in these proceedings?
   Judgment:
   1. The appeal was allowed, according to the Bench, for the reasons stated above. Both the marriage between the parties and the respondent's responsibility to pay maintenance do not end on 5.12.1990.
       
   2. As a result, the responder will be obligated to pay maintenance until the legal requirement is met. The respondent will pay all costs associated with this appeal.
   Decision:
   1. According to the Holy Quran, attempts at reconciliation between the husband and wife must have been made before the talaq, which must be performed for a legitimate cause.
       
   2. Two arbitrators from the husband's and wife's families must be present for the same reason. If all other measures fail, the term "talaq" may be employed.[24]

Conclusion
The term "talaq" has important cultural, religious, and legal ramifications in the area of family law, particularly in Islamic societies. The term "talaq" refers to the Islamic custom of divorce, which a husband may start by making a legal declaration. Talaq is firmly anchored in tradition, but in recent years, it has drawn attention and generated controversy, prompting a number of court answers meant to resolve its intricacies and ensure justice and fairness in divorce processes.

The legal reaction to the talaq controversy has taken many different forms. Islamic law has been reinterpreted by courts in several nations, including India and Pakistan, to promote gender equality and protect women's rights. They have attempted to establish a balance between upholding justice and protecting religious convictions.

In talaq procedures, courts have first and foremost emphasised the value of due process. They have decided that before a divorce may be granted, the talaq must be expressed in a straightforward and unambiguous way. This strategy tries to stop hasty divorces and safeguard the interests of both parties.

Second, several courts have acknowledged the requirement for women's post-divorce financial security. They have decided that men must make accommodations and care for their wives financially throughout the "iddah" period (the waiting time following divorce). This clause guarantees that women can keep their independence and dignity following a divorce without being left penniless

In conclusion, the idea of talaq and the legal reactions to it show the intricate interaction between religious convictions, cultural customs, and legal rights. In order to preserve the rights and dignity of women and promote the welfare of children, courts have played a critical role in establishing the bounds of talaq while upholding the purity of individual religion.

The legal answers to talaq strive to find a balance between tradition and modernity, promoting more gender equality and social justice within Islamic communities. This is done via the use of due process, financial support, and child custody concerns. These legislative reforms and judicial interpretations must constantly adjust to take into account the changing demands and expectations of people in different social groups.

Bibliography:

• Alidadi K, the Western Judicial Answer to Islamic Talaq (2005)
• Walsh K, Divorce and Judicial Separation Proceedings in the Circuit Court (Bloomsbury Publishing 2019)
• Bowen J and Salim A, Women and Property Rights in Indonesian Islamic Legal Contexts (BRILL 2018)
• Muhammad Latif Fauzi, "Women and Property Rights in Indonesian Islamic Legal Contexts, by John Bowen and Arskal Salim (Eds)" (2019) 175 Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 92
• Maya Shatzmiller, "Women and Property Rights in Al-Andalus and the Maghrib: Social Patterns and Legal Discourse" (1995) 2 Islamic Law and Society 219

End-Notes:

1. Divorce under Muslim Law: The Concept - https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5479-divorce-under-muslim-law-the-concept.html
2. Islamic Sharia - Talaq - https://www.islamic-sharia.org/downloads/talaq/
3. What is Talaq under Muslim Law: How Talaq is Made - https://lawcorner.in/what-is-talaq-under-muslim-law-how-talaq-is-made/
4. Under Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939
5. Triple Talaq and Women's Rights in the Indian Supreme Court - https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/triple-talaq-and-womens-rights-in-the-indian-supreme-court/
6. JSTOR Article - https://www.jstor.org/stable/45093930
7. Open Edition Journal - https://journals.openedition.org/samaj/4433
8. NCBI Article - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5992251/
9. Shayara Bano vs Union of India - Background - https://www.scobserver.in/cases/shayara-bano-union-india-triple-talaq-case-background/
10. Shayara Bano vs Union of India - Case Summary - https://lawplanet.in/shayara-bano-vs-union-of-india-case-summary-2017-scc/
11. Danial Latifi vs Union of India - https://www.law.cornell.edu/women-and-justice/resource/danial_latifi_v_union_of_india
12. Iqbal Bano vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 5 June, 2007 - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/390198/
13. Danial Latifi vs Union of India - Case - https://lawplanet.in/danial-latifi-vs-union-of-india-case/
14. Mohd Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum - https://www.law.cornell.edu/women-and-justice/resource/mohd_ahmed_khan_v_shah_bano_begum
15. 1979 AIR 362, 1979 SCR (2) 75
16. AIR 1979 SC 362
17. Fuzlunbi v. K. Khader Vali And Another - https://www.casemine.com
18. AIR 1980 SC 1730
19. Supreme Court Judgment - https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/9303.pdf
20. Shamim Ara vs State of U.P. - PDF - https://jajharkhand.in/wp/wp-content/judicial_updates_files/03_Personal_Law/06_Muslim_Women/Shamim_Ara_vs_State_Of_U.P._&_Anr_on_1_October,_2002.PDF
21. Shamim Ara vs State of UP - Case - https://lawplanet.in/shamim-ara-vs-state-of-up-case/

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Kukkala. Sarada

Authentication No: JN402818688552-28-0124