“‘Court of Kazi’, ‘Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat’, ‘Sharia Court’, etcetera, by whatever name styled, have no recognition in law,” the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, referring to the earlier 2014 ruling in Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India. “Any declaration/decision by such bodies, by whatever name labelled, is not binding on anyone and is unenforceable by resort to any coercive measure,” the court noted.
The bench added, “The only way such declaration/decision can withstand scrutiny in the eye of law could be when the affected parties accept such declaration/decision by acting thereon or accepting it and when such action does not conflict with any other law. Even then, such declaration/decision, at best, would only be valid inter se the parties that choose to act upon/accept the same, and not a third-party.”
Talaq, dowry, and a contested separation
The couple were both in their second marriage when they tied the knot in 2002. The husband, employed with the Border Security Force (BSF), and the woman had two children together. But the marriage turned sour, and in 2005, the husband filed for divorce in the ‘Court of Kazi’, Bhopal. That attempt ended in a compromise on 22 November 2005, where both agreed to live together.
However, the relationship deteriorated further. The woman claimed her husband beat her, demanded dowry—including a motorcycle and ₹50,000—and eventually forced her and the children out of their home in May 2008. The husband then sought a divorce again, this time in the ‘Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat’, Bhopal, in September 2008.A month later, the woman approached the Family Court seeking ₹5,000 a month for herself and ₹1,000 each for their two children. The court awarded maintenance only to the children, stating that the woman had left the matrimonial home of her own volition, without sufficient cause. It further held that since it was their second marriage, there was no possibility of dowry demands.The Allahabad High Court upheld this decision in 2018, saying her separation lacked justification and the Family Court’s findings were not perverse.
Supreme Court steps in, calls out flawed assumptions
Rejecting the reasoning of the lower courts, the Supreme Court observed that the 2005 compromise merely stated that the couple had decided to live together without giving each other any cause for complaint. That, it said, was not a valid basis to deny the woman maintenance.
The bench was particularly critical of the Family Court’s assumption that dowry cannot be demanded in a second marriage. “In her application for maintenance filed under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant contended that respondent No.2 (husband) had caused cruelty to her as she was not able to fulfil his demand for a motorcycle and Rs 50,000. On this aspect, the Family Court noted that since it was their second marriage, there is no possibility of demand of dowry by him, as he would be trying to rehabilitate his house. Such reasoning/observation by the Family Court is unknown to the canons of law and is based on mere conjecture and surmise,” the bench stated.
It further warned against overstepping judicial roles. “The Family Court will do well, henceforth, to bear in mind the observation in Nagarathinam v State, that the ‘court is not an institution to sermonise society on morality and ethics’,” the Supreme Court said.
Maintenance awarded, legal clarity reinforced
Reversing the earlier orders, the court granted the woman ₹4,000 in monthly maintenance from the date she had originally filed the petition. The husband was also directed to continue supporting the children financially until they reach adulthood.
This case, while centred on an individual dispute, reaffirms a broader constitutional principle: religious arbitration or declarations cannot replace or override India’s legal framework. While parties may choose to follow such rulings voluntarily, the law cannot enforce them. And when rights under statutory provisions such as maintenance are at stake, Indian courts alone have the authority to decide.
