Marriage of Muslim woman during 'iddat' not void: Court

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : May 15 2017 | 4:13 PM IST
As the issue of triple talaq is being debated in the Supreme Court, a city court has ruled that the marriage performed by a Muslim woman during the 'iddat' (waiting) period is not void.
The Delhi court dismissed the claim of a man, accused of domestic violence by his wife, that their wedding was invalid as the per Islamic law, as she had not completed 'iddat' after getting a divorce from her first husband.
In Islamic law, a divorced woman has to wait during the 'iddat' period for about three months before she can remarry.
"Any marriage performed by a Muslim woman during the iddat period is an irregular marriage and not a void (batil) marriage. Hence, the contention of the man on this aspect is found to be without any merits," Special Judge Bhupesh Kumar said while relying on a Supreme Court observation.
The court said there was "sufficient evidence" to issue notice to the Muslim man, who worked with the Coal India Ltd in Chhattisgarh, under the domestic violence act, saying "even depriving aggrieved person economically or financially amounts to domestic violence."
In her complaint seeking Rs 10 lakh compensation and monthly maintenance from the accused man, her second husband, the woman had said that he had concealed his first wedlock from her and when she found out about it, he started avoiding her and stopped sending her money.
She said she had married the accused after obtaining divorce from her first husband.
The man, on the other hand, denied that he had married the complainant, saying she was in the 'iddat' period and any wedding during this period is invalid.
"As per Islamic law, the female cannot remarry during 'iddat' period and any marriage taking place during 'Iddat' period cannot be termed as valid marriage," he said, adding that the woman got divorced from her first husband on October 4, 2012 and the second nikah was performed two days later.
The court also rejected the man's contention that the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act are not attracted as there are no allegations of physical, sexual or verbal abuse in the application.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: May 15 2017 | 4:13 PM IST

Next Story