Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 (d); Section 151 – Rejection of plaint – Suit for declaration of dissolution of marriage based on Triple Talaq – Maintainability – Retrospective application of law declared by Supreme Court. Held: A plaint seeking declaration that marriage stood dissolved pursuant to Talaq-e-Biddat (Triple Talaq) is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as such form of talaq has been declared void, illegal and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1. The declaration of law by the Supreme Court operates retrospectively, there being no indication to the contrary. Therefore, even though the triple talaq was allegedly pronounced in 2016 and the suit was filed prior to the 2017 judgment, the very basis of the suit is contrary to the law of the land and cannot be adjudicated upon. Allowing trial to proceed would amount to permitting enforcement of an unconstitutional act. The trial Court’s view that the law was not applicable retrospectively is erroneous. Rejection of plaint justified.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 (d); Section 151 – Rejection of plaint – Suit for declaration of dissolution of marriage based on Triple Talaq – Maintainability – Retrospective application of law declared by Supreme Court.
Held: A plaint seeking declaration that marriage stood dissolved pursuant to Talaq-e-Biddat (Triple Talaq) is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as such form of talaq has been declared void, illegal and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1. The declaration of law by the Supreme Court operates retrospectively, there being no indication to the contrary. Therefore, even though the triple talaq was allegedly pronounced in 2016 and the suit was filed prior to the 2017 judgment, the very basis of the suit is contrary to the law of the land and cannot be adjudicated upon. Allowing trial to proceed would amount to permitting enforcement of an unconstitutional act. The trial Court’s view that the law was not applicable retrospectively is erroneous. Rejection of plaint justified.

Constitution of India – Articles 13(3)(a), 141, 144 – Binding nature of Supreme Court’s decisions – Effect on pending suits.
The declaration of unconstitutionality of Triple Talaq renders it void ab initio. Courts are bound under Articles 141 and 144 to give effect to such declaration even in pending matters. Any plaint founded on an unconstitutional practice is barred by law and must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 – Section 2 – Declared unconstitutional to extent it recognises Triple Talaq.
After the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Shayara Bano, the statutory foundation permitting Triple Talaq stands invalid. Therefore, a suit for declaration of dissolution of marriage based on such talaq is not maintainable.

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 – Section 3 – Triple Talaq illegal.
The 2019 Act, though prospective, further reinforces the illegality of instantaneous and irrevocable talaq. But even independently, the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling has retrospective effect.

Held: Impugned order refusing to reject the plaint set aside. Plaint in O.S. No.195/2016 ordered to be rejected. Civil Revision Petition allowed.

CASE FACTS

1. Parties

   • Revision Petitioner (Defendant before trial Court): Wife – Smt. Shaik Jareena

   • Respondent (Plaintiff before trial Court): Husband – Sri Shaik Dariyavali

   • They are Muslims belonging to the Sunni sect, married on 04-11-1999, with three children.

2. Background

   • The wife allegedly left the matrimonial home in 2012.

   • The husband claims he made several reconciliation attempts:

     • Through arbiters from both sides.

     • Through Anjuman Committee, Chilakaluripet.

   • As per Anjuman Committee advice, the husband paid ₹70,000 to the wife.

   • Wife re-joined him on 22-07-2015, but disputes allegedly continued.

3. Events leading to alleged Talaq

   • Wife was unhappy about:

     • The husband giving one of their sons in adoption (which she claimed is against Islamic law).

     • Not being allowed to talk to the child.

   • Wife allegedly threatened suicide and failed to observe Muslim rites (as per husband's claim).

   • Wife lodged a criminal complaint against husband in February 2016.

4. Pronouncement of Triple Talaq

   • Husband claims he pronounced Talaq three times (Talaq-e-Biddat) on 08-04-2016.

   • He alleges he:

     • Sent a letter dated 08-04-2016 informing wife of talaq (received on 18-04-2016).

     • Sent a cheque for ₹9,000 towards iddat.

     • Informed and submitted the Talaqnama to the Anjuman Committee on 22-07-2016.

5. Suit before Trial Court

   • Husband filed O.S. No.195/2016 on 04-11-2016 seeking:

     Declaration that the marriage stood dissolved by the triple talaq pronounced on 08-04-2016.

6. Wife’s Defence

   • She denied his allegations.

   • Claimed the husband violated Islamic law, especially regarding the adoption of their child.

   • Stated the alleged Triple Talaq is invalid under Muslim law.

   • Sought dismissal of the suit.

7. Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

   • After the Supreme Court judgment in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (22-08-2017) declaring Triple Talaq void and unconstitutional, the wife filed:

     • I.A. No.1607/2017 under Order VII Rule 11 & Section 151 CPC

     • Sought rejection of the plaint as the suit is based on an unconstitutional and void form of divorce.

8. Trial Court’s Order (01-07-2019)

   • Trial Court dismissed her application.

   • Reasoning:

     • When the suit was filed (Nov 2016), Triple Talaq had not yet been declared unconstitutional.

     • The suit disclosed a cause of action at that time.

     • Therefore, the plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

9. Civil Revision Petition

   • Wife challenged the trial court’s dismissal in CRP No.2477/2019.

   • Contended:

     • The Supreme Court judgment applies retrospectively.

     • Suit is based entirely on an unconstitutional practice.

     • Continuing trial would violate the “law of the land”.