गौहाटी हाई कोर्ट ने तय किया: तलाक‑ए‑हसन वैध, पंजीकरण के लिए 2024 के नए अधिनियम के तहत अधिकारियों से संपर्क आवश्यक

Gauhati High Court: In a writ petition concerning registration of a divorce pronounced through Talaq-E-Hassan, a Single Judge Bench of Arun Dev Choudhury, J., referring to Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1, held that Talaq-E-Hassan is a valid and recognised form of Talaq and is not prohibited under law. The Court noted that the authority approached by the petitioner for registering the divorce was functioning under the repealed Assam Moslem Marriages and Divorces Registration Act, 1935. Therefore, it directed him to approach the jurisdictional Marriage and Divorce Registrar under the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024 to complete the mandatory registration process.

Background

The petitioner married Respondent No. 5 on 20-11-2016. According to the petitioner, matrimonial disputes arose between them, following which Respondent No. 5 left the matrimonial home in 2018 and started residing at her parental house. Despite efforts at reconciliation, she did not return. Alleging cruelty and an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the petitioner pronounced Talaq-E-Hassan on the dates 22-03-2026, 26-04-2026 and 27-05-2026 in the presence of witnesses. The Talaqnamas were forwarded to Respondent No. 5 after each pronouncement. Following the third pronouncement, the petitioner claimed that the marriage stood dissolved and submitted an application dated 02-06-20261 for registration of the divorce under Section 12 of the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024 before the Sub Registrar-Cum-Marriage and Divorce Registrar, Barpeta (Respondent No. 4). Being aggrieved by the non-consideration of his application, the petitioner has approached the Gauhati High Court.

Contentions

The petitioner contended that Talaq-E-Hassan is a valid and legally recognised form of divorce and is not prohibited under law. He submitted that he had pronounced Talaq-E-Hassan in accordance with its prescribed requisites and, following the third pronouncement, he submitted an application for registration of the divorce under Section 12 of the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024. He argued that the concerned authority could not refuse to act upon the application and ought to be directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the authority approached by the petitioner derived its powers from the Assam Moslem Marriages and Divorces Registration Act, 1935, which had since been repealed. Consequently, the post of Registrar of Muslim Marriages and Divorces created under the 1935 Act also stood abolished, and the concerned authority could no longer register the divorce. The respondents submitted that the petitioner should instead approach the jurisdictional Marriage and Divorce Registrar under the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024 for registration of the Talaqnama.

Issues before the Court

1: Whether the Talaq-E-Hassan pronounced by the petitioner was a valid form of Talaq and had been pronounced in accordance with its prescribed requisites?

2: Whether the petitioner could seek registration of the Talaqnama under Section 12 of the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024?

Analysis, Law and Decision

Issue 1:. Talaq-E-Hassan remains a Valid and Recognised Form of Muslim Divorce

The Court held that Talaq-E-Hassan is a valid form of Talaq and is not prohibited under law. The Court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 and explained that Talaq-E-Hassan involves three successive pronouncements, with an opportunity for revocation or reconciliation after the first and second pronouncements. In the present case, the petitioner had made the three pronouncements on 22-03-2026, 26-04-2026 and 27-05-2026. Since there was no revocation after the first and second pronouncements, the Court observed that, ordinarily, upon the third pronouncement in accordance with the requisites of Talaq-E-Hassan, the marriage would stand dissolved. However, the Court also mentioned that for the enforceability of the divorce, its registration was a necessary step.

Issue 2: Registration of Muslim Divorce must be sought before the Competent Authority under the 2024 Act

The Court held that registration of a divorce under the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024 is governed by Section 12 of the Act. The Court observed that under Section 12(2), upon receiving an application for registration of divorce, the Marriage and Divorce Registrar must satisfy himself that the divorce was effected by the person claiming to have effected it and verify the identity of the person appearing before him. Upon being satisfied of these requirements, the Registrar is required to make an entry of the divorce in the divorce register.

The Court noted that the earlier 1935 Act had been repealed and the post of Sadar Quazi and Registrar of Muslim Marriage and Divorce, Barpeta, created under that legislation, had also been abolished. Therefore, the Court could not direct Respondent No. 4 to register the Talaqnama. However, noticing that the Talaq-E-Hassan as pronounced by the petitioner is a valid form of Talaq and not prohibited as on date in the country, the Court directed that the petitioner was required to approach the jurisdictional Marriage and Divorce Registrar under the 2024 Act, who would examine whether the divorce was effected by the person claiming to have pronounced it and verify his identity before deciding whether the divorce was required to be registered. The Court also stated that in case of refusal, the petitioner would have the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the 2024 Act.

The Court disposed of the writ petition, noting that Respondent No. 5, despite due service of notice, was not present before the Court, while leaving her at liberty to challenge the Talaq-E-Hassan before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.

[X v. State of Assam, WP(C) No. 4163 of 2026, decided on 08-09-2026]

*Judgment authored by: Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the petitioner: Mr. R Islam and Mr. Saiful Islam

For the State: J. Handique, Standing Counsel

1. Ed. Note: The source order carries two different dates for the same registration application: 01.06.2026 in the prayer clause and 02.06.2026 in the narrative a few lines later. This brief follows the narrative date i.e. 02-06-2026.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News