The All India Muslim Personal Law Board on Sunday said that it will “initiate all possible legal, constitutional and democratic measures” against a recent Supreme Court judgment which held that a divorced Muslim woman can file a claim for maintenance from her former husband.

The board adopted a resolution against the judgment, stating that it was “against the Islamic law [Shariah]”.

On Wednesday, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih held that a Muslim woman, who has been illegally divorced through triple talaq, can seek maintenance from her former husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Instant triple talaq, or Talaq-e-Biddah, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2019. In this practice, a Muslim man could instantly divorce his wife by pronouncing “talaq” three times.

Part of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself, a magistrate can direct him to give her a monthly allowance. The amount of allowance is decided by the magistrate.

On Sunday, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board said that the judgment would “create further problems to these women who have successfully come out of their painful relationship”.

The board also said that it doesn’t augur well “with human reasoning that the man is held responsible to maintain his ex-wives when the marriage itself is non-existent”.

In this view, it authorised its president Khalid Saifullah Rahmani to initiate all possible measures to ensure that the decision is rolled back.

On Uniform Civil Code

Apart from this, the board also adopted resolutions against the Uniform Civil Code.

The Uniform Civil Code, an ideological plank of the Bharatiya Janata Party, is a proposed common set of laws governing marriage, divorce, succession and adoption for all citizens. Currently, the personal affairs of different religious and tribal groups – except in Uttarakhand and Goa – are based on community-specific laws, largely derived from religious scripture.

After the new National Democratic Alliance Cabinet took oath in June, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said that implementing a Uniform Civil Code is a part of the newly sworn-in Union government’s agenda.

The board on Sunday said that in a multi-religious and multi-cultural country like India, a Uniform Civil Code would be impractical and undesirable.

“Hence, any attempts to implement it is against the spirit of our nation and against the rights ensured for minorities, therefore the Central and state governments should refrain from drafting UCC laws,” it said.

It also stated that the decision to implement the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand was “wrong and unnecessary”.

“Therefore, the board decided to challenge the Uttarakhand UCC in the High Court and directed its legal team to file a petition,” the resolution read.

In March, Uttarakhand became the first state to have introduced a Uniform Civil Code after Independence.

Legal experts have said that the implementation of the code across the country could lead to the erasure of the personal law practices of minority communities, particularly Muslims, who constitute around 14% of India’s population, according to the 2011 census.

On Places of Worship Act

The board also called for the “restoration” of the Places of Worship Act, stating that it was a “matter of great concern as to how the lower courts are entertaining the new disputes related to Gyanvapi Masjid and Shahi Eidgah of Mathura”.

It said that the “Supreme Court while pronouncing its Babri judgment had clearly stated that the Places of Worship Act, 1991 has now closed all such doors”.

“Unfortunately it has withdrawn itself from its own principle stand and now not allowing Muslim side to even appeal in Mathura and Kashi cases,” it said. “The board expects that the Supreme Court will put an end to all new disputes.”

On January 31, the Varanasi district court passed a direction allowing Hindu prayers in the sealed basement of the Gyanvapi mosque complex after the details of an Archaeological Survey of India survey report, which found that a Hindu temple existed at the site of mosque, were made public by a court order on January 25.

In the case of Mathura’s Shahi Idgah mosque, the Supreme Court on April 15 extended its stay on the Allahabad High Court’s order allowing for a court-monitored “scientific survey” of the mosque.

On December 14, the High Court allowed a petition demanding that a court commissioner be appointed to inspect the mosque adjoining the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple.

Also read: