'Courts Of Kazi And Sharia Have No Recognition In Law': Supreme Court, Orders Maintenance To Muslim Woman

The Supreme Court of India has once again underlined that so-called ‘Courts of Kazi’, ‘Darul Kaja’, or ‘Sharia Courts’, irrespective of the names they go by, have no recognition under Indian law.

The court held that any decision or directive issued by such bodies is unenforceable unless voluntarily accepted by the parties involved, and even then, it holds no bearing on third parties or conflicting legal provisions, LiveLaw reported.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah made the observation while setting aside a Family Court and Allahabad High Court decision that denied maintenance to a Muslim woman.

The Family Court had based its decision on a compromise deed filed in a 'Court of Kazi', determining that the wife was the cause of marital discord.

Referring to the 2014 judgment in Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India, the bench stated:

“'Court of Kazi’, ‘Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat’, ‘Sharia Court’ etc by whatever name styled have no recognition in law. As noted in Vishwa Lochan Madan (supra), 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 case involved a woman married in 2002 to a man who filed for divorce in a 'Court of Kazi' in 2005. The matter was resolved through a compromise in which both parties agreed to cohabit.

However, in 2008, the husband filed for divorce again, this time before a 'Darul Kaja' and the wife sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The family court dismissed her claim, stating that the dispute arose due to her behaviour and that a dowry could not have been demanded as it was the second marriage for both.

The Supreme Court termed this logic as flawed, stating, “Such reasoning/observation by the Family Court is unknown to the canons of law and is based on mere conjecture and surmise.”

Furthermore, the court noted that the compromise deed did not include any admission of guilt by the wife and thus could not justify the denial of maintenance.

The apex court directed the husband to pay the appellant Rs 4,000 per month as maintenance from the date of her original petition.

Also Read: Chennai Metro Begins Trial Runs On Driverless Corridor From Poonamallee To Porur, Milestone For Phase 2