A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjwal Bhuyan and N. Kotiswar Singh questioned how a divorce notice could be issued through a lawyer or any third party. “How can this be valid? The talaqnama must be signed by the husband. How can a third party pronounce a divorce on behalf of a woman?” the bench said, calling the practice “unacceptable” and warning that the Court would be compelled to intervene if discriminatory systems persisted.
The petitions, including one filed by journalist Benazeer Hina, argue that Talaq-e-Hasan violates the fundamental rights of Muslim women by allowing unilateral dissolution of marriage by the husband over three months. Benazeer told the Court that her husband attempted to divorce her through an unsigned notice sent by his lawyer, leaving her facing serious administrative hurdles, including documentation issues affecting her five-year-old child.
Her counsel, advocate Rizwan Ahmed, said the absence of the husband’s signature renders the divorce deed invalid and places his client in legal uncertainty. He questioned how a woman could prove the end of her marriage if the husband chose to remarry while she remained without proper documentation.
Representing the husband, advocate M.R. Shamshad argued that Islamic practice permits authorisation of another person to deliver a divorce notice. The bench rejected the reasoning outright, remarking, “If the husband can contact a lawyer, what stops him from speaking to his wife directly?”
The Court has directed the husband to appear in person at the next hearing on November 26, signalling further examination of personal law practices that may conflict with constitutional protections.
6.jpg)
