SC Verdict on Triple Talaq: Thoughts

India is on the verge of a defining moment in its Legal history today. The Supreme Court announces it’s verdict on whether the practice of Triple Talaq, the practice where Muslim women may be divorced by their husbands by just uttering the word ‘Talaq’ thrice in a row, is constitutionally valid or not.

There’s been a debate simmering for years on this topic, and on the unification of Personal Laws in the country under a Uniform Civil Code, envisioned in Article 44 of the Directive Principles, Constitution of India. But each time our Legislators and Judiciary have failed to deliver. That’s no surprise, because these two institutions have traditionally been rather slow in changing personal laws in the country. For example, the Hindu Succession Laws on women not being able to inherit Mitakshara coparcenary property (ancestral property, in layman terms), was changed only in the year 2005, nearly 60 years after our Independence, and almost 50 years after the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was enacted! Vote bank politics, you see, matters far more than the rights of one entire demographic of the country.

Of course, the blame doesn’t entirely lie on the law makers and the judiciary of the country, but with it’s people’s divided opinions on what is considered ‘cultural values’ and what is ‘a clear violation of human rights’.

I hope that this time, inspite of the religious and political drama behind this debate, the practice is put to an end finally, or at the very least, is removed from the protection afforded to it thus far under Article 25 of the Constitution (right to freedom of religion). How a unilateral decision that ends a marriage between two people is considered ‘socially and culturally acceptable‘, is beyond me. But then what do I know, I’m just a woman.

Keeping my fingers crossed!


Copyright ©2017 Pradita Kapahi.

All rights reserved.

Image Credits:

164 thoughts on “SC Verdict on Triple Talaq: Thoughts

  1. But pradita there is difference between ending of a practice legally and ending it religiously. Like dowry is not permitted legally but it has increased over the years and now it has become a status symbol. But we will hope for the best. At least it will show that our legal system is capable of making right decisions.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. This is a tricky one, actually. Turn it around – should a woman be able to leave her husband? Of course she should, if you are miserable in your marriage you should NEVER be forced to stay. Marriage needs to be fully consensual, it should never ever be forced. But then, that needs to be true for men as well – a man who is miserable in his marriage should always be allowed to divorce. Divorce can’t be something both sides need to agree on, that’s how you trap people in abusive marriages.

    But hold on, does that mean I think the Triple Talaq is acceptable? Women and children just left behind, often without income and perhaps even without a home? First of all, divorced or not, a man must still take responsibility for the children he has fathered. So yeah, sure, get divorced. But he may NOT just leave his kids without anything, he is still their father and should always do his part in supporting them.

    What of the wife, being left to fend for herself without a husband? The thing is… a woman SHOULD NOT NEED A HUSBAND. In an equal society a woman can fend for herself, just as a man can. A husband miserable in his marriage should be allowed to get a divorce, as should a wife. But on equal footing, the same rules need to apply to both and both need to be equally responsible for children and house loans and whatnot.

    Don’t fight the concept of a swift divorce. Fight the unequality, the oppression, the fucked up traditions that mean shame and poverty for a divorced woman. She shouldn’t need a man in the first place! Married or unmarried, we must all have the same rights, the same possibilities, and the same social standing as men.

    With love

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you for that detailed discuss on that matter. I agree when you say a woman shouldn’t be allowed to leave her man that easily either. But the practice here allows men to talaq at will, and then enforces a period of abstinence on women. But even thay, somehow, can be condoned. The practice has earned a bad name because women who are thus divorced are often left without resort to any maintenance or any means of sustenance. Because the law that governs Muslim women in India is not exactly set (they are covered under their personal Islamic laws, which are not governed by the judiciary of the country), they have no way of seeking legal recourse against a man who has wrongly divorced them and not even provided for the woman or his children. Thus is where the real problem is.

      Unfortunately your argument of a woman not needing a man is inapplicable on most women in India, because a lot of us are still dependent due to various reasons on men for sustenance. That is the reason this triple talaq becomes so problematic. If Indian women were able to fend for themselves, the question of triple talaq would not have been such a huge issue.

      Nobody here is fighting the concept of swift divorce. Indeed swift divorce sometimes brings relief to a strained and abusive marriage. But why let only one gender have the privilege of leaving the marriage? Why not both? If the Muslim women are also allowed the same rights to talaq men, then this religious practice makes sense. But as is often the case with religious practices, most of them are beyond sense.

      Thank you again for commenting 😊

      Liked by 1 person

      • “I agree when you say a woman shouldn’t be allowed to leave her man that easily either.” – Actually I didn’t say that! I said both men and women should be able to divorce easily, as no one should be forced to stay in a marriage they are miserable in. But, and this is the important bit, it needs to be on equal footing. Same rights, same duties, same responsibilities. So I suppose what I’m saying really is, I don’t think the problem really is “triple talaq”, but the systematic oppression of women that leads them to being dependent on husbands in the first place. See what I mean?

        “Unfortunately your argument of a woman not needing a man is inapplicable on most women in India, because a lot of us are still dependent due to various reasons on men for sustenance.” – Again I think you misunderstood me a bit. I understand that in India a whole lot of women are still dependent on men, my point there was that they shouldn’t be. ^^

        “But why let only one gender have the privilege of leaving the marriage? Why not both?” – Absolutely! My point exactly, equality is the way to go!

        I wholeheartedly support India’s struggle for women’s rights, but I also know that it might be difficult for me as an outsider to know the intricacies of your situation. I think I know, and I have lots of opinions of course, but ultimately you who actually live in it probably know best. So I wish you all the best of luck in reshaping your society to a more equal and fair one!

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thanks a lot and sorry for that miscommunication on my part. Now that you’ve clarified it has made me see what you really meant, and I agree with you completely, If a practice as barbaric as this must exist, then let it be on equal footing for men and women. But the main issue at hand is, no religious practice, not even one that give equal rights to men and women would be upheld if it is against basic human rights. So handing over equal rights to muslim women in terms of divorce, is not the answer to this problem. The real anwer to this problem is enacting a law that protects the sanctity of marriage, and at the same time allows for a swift and fair divorce in a crumbling marriage. Thank you again for participating 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

  3. True, it not only affects Triple Talaaq but also polygamy. India is secular for the practice of religion, the laws should be the same for each and everyone. The people shouting “secularism” as a point against UCC are fundamentally wrong, practice should be allowed, archaic old laws shouldn’t be.

    Eagerly hoping for UCC to pass.


  4. Whether people can separate in a marriage or not is not the issue here, it is a question of morality and the acceptable norms of human society. If we cannot accept that human rights are like the 4/5ths of an iceberg, submerged, unseen below the below the lesser peaks of myriad religions above the water. No country can accept multi religious practices that supersede basic human rights, it is a recipe for disaster! Time for the women of the world to organise mass street protests globally for something worthwhile instead of what Donald Trump may or may not have dreamt about last night!

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree with every word of yours Dr. Unfortunately India has yet to unify its personal laws into a single code. The reason behind its inability is that it fears that her substantially religiously-oriented population will never agree to one single legal system for marriages, succession, adoption and divorce. I believe that differ rt systems of personal laws can exist in the same country, of course leading to some hardshio in their implementation, but it can be done. However those practices that are inherently unjustified and cruel, be it towards an demographic of the population, must be abolished. How can we, in this century, condone practices that allow someone to be treated as sub-humans or chattel?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Whilst respecting your views I disagree about personal laws. A full extension of this is to permit a cults, loony or well meaning, to operate outside the law of the land claiming their rights were handed down by an omnipotent being who cannot be seen or proven to exist. Oh, hang on a minute ………

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dr. even i support a unified code but knowing this country and the rate at which reforms are made here, I don’t see that happening in the near future. Not at least while I’m still alive. Religion is a big whale that can’t be controlled or maneuvered around in this country. The only way of tackling it is through it

          Liked by 1 person

    • With all due respect, but why are you mentioning live in relationships here? No one is talking about a relationship where no marriage contract/relationship exists. We are solely questioning the sanity of a years long religious practice where a woman has no say in divorce and the even more deplorable practice of leaving divorced women with no Wherewithal for their sustenance. Where is morality in that?

      Liked by 1 person

      • why not discussing in live in relationship, it is not a marriage and nt by law. Live in relatinship is also a against a law because if a girl has a children then the children and live in relationship partner not claim the property of children. It is a illegal by law

        Liked by 1 person

        • Bhai mere that’s because no one is talking about relationships that are similar to marriage here. This discussion is only about triple talaq. How can you talk about an irrelevant point here.


            • Please! are you trying to say live in are allowed only in Hindus. Sorry to say this brother, but your facts are wrong. A Live in relationship can occur in any kind of religious following. Please check your facts befor you state them.

              Ok, and even if it happens only amongst Hindus, so what? How is a live in relationship being equated to divorce here?


              • You telling that the divorce is a mistreatment among girls and live in relationship is not a legal. If girl born a child during live in relatio ship then a child claim property of father and grand father. Boy leaving in the condition of pregnancy and marry other girl so live in relationship is not a mistreatment among girls. Triple talaq is related to Muslims so media propagate it but hindus kill the wife for second marriage due to divorce is not a system in your religion

                Liked by 1 person

                • Look Daneel you’re again mixing up two things. But forget it, I don’t think you get it or youre making it an issue for no reason, because you wanna argue on soemthing.

                  So let’s take up live in relationships…. Where is the law regarding live in relationships ONLY for Hindus? Show me the act or the legislation. And then we’ll proceed to the point whether only Hindus engage in live in relationships.

                  As for Hindu killing first wife to get married to another one, my friend that is a legal offense under not just IPC but also personal Hindu laws. But at the same time, let me correct you, it’s isn’t a practice. If you have seen some Hindu killing his first wife to get married to another woman, you have seen an exception, not a norm.

                  Aage bolo kya bolna hai…


                  • Divorce is not allowed in your religion due to this the crime occurs. Divorce is very importance because if husband and wife are not adjust with each ther then divorce is option. But there is no divorce then the what option for husband and wife. It is contract based relationship not a saat janam relationship

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • Excuse me? Who told you that divorce isn’t a practice amongst us Hindus? Even if it wasn’t originally allowed in the religion, the law now allows every Hindu couple the right to go for divorce if their marriage sours. Please go read The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, sections 5 to 13. There was a similar unrest amongst us Hindus about why divorce was being ntroduced amongst Hindus when it was not allowed by Hinduism, but I’m glad the law makers of the time changed the laws and allowed a divorce. A marriage, if it turns bad or abusive, benefits no one, not even the society. And that is why divorce should be an equal right. Not just a man’s


                    • The India media propagate the triple talaq and other problems related to Muslims negatively just like that the triple talaq is the mother problem of India. Our country facing several problems like unemployment, overpopulation, increasing crime rate, poverty etc.


                • Who said media isn’t interested? What do you think is the #notinmyname movement? What do you think every Hindu who condemns killing Muslim folks for the ban on cow slaughter is crying about? You think all these things aren’t being reported by the media? Then please go back and read the news of the past 2 months. That’s all you’ll read.


                  • All the media group is related with central government. and some coward people killing several people in the name of beef s its not crime. The Government did not action against him due to in the same religion


  5. Pingback: An Update on The SC Verdict on Triple Talaq | The Pradita Chronicles

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s