The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has set aside orders passed by the trial court and Family Court in a dispute involving a Muslim husband’s plea seeking declaration of divorce through triple talaq.
Justice Vivek Jain held that no court can grant a declaration validating triple talaq after the Supreme Court declared the practice unconstitutional in 2017. The Court described the litigation as “vexatious and frivolous” and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a suit filed by husband Rizwan Ali against his wife Smt. Rubina Kavi. In the suit, the husband claimed that due to alleged mental cruelty by the wife, he had pronounced triple talaq on January 14, 2015 in the presence of two witnesses and later executed a written talaqnama.
He sought a declaration from the court that the oral divorce pronounced through triple talaq was valid and effective from the date of pronouncement. He also sought an injunction restraining the wife from residing in the matrimonial home.
During the pendency of the suit, the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India Judgment declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
What Happened During the Hearing
Following the Supreme Court judgment, the wife moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the relief claimed was barred by law. Initially, the civil court rejected the application, observing that the Supreme Court judgment would operate prospectively.
Later, after the matter was transferred to the Family Court, the wife again sought rejection of the plaint.
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Accepts Lawyer’s Apology, Drops Contempt Warning Over Bail Hearing Remarks
At that stage, the husband amended the plaint and claimed that the talaq had actually been pronounced on three separate occasions between 2013 and 2014, and not instantaneously in one sitting in 2015.
The High Court noted that the original pleadings and talaqnama clearly referred only to triple talaq pronounced on January 14, 2015, and made no mention of earlier pronouncements.
Court’s Key Observation
Justice Vivek Jain observed that the later amendment was merely an attempt to escape the consequences of the Supreme Court ruling against triple talaq.
The Court held that judicial interpretation of law by constitutional courts ordinarily operates retrospectively unless expressly stated otherwise. It further relied upon an earlier Division Bench ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court holding that courts cannot grant declarations validating triple talaq after the Supreme Court verdict in Shayara Bano.
The Court observed:
“The suit in question is also vexatious and frivolous piece of litigation seeking declaration on the basis of oral triple talaq and no such declaration can be granted as per law.”
Court’s Decision
Allowing the wife’s petitions, the High Court rejected the husband’s plaint and held that the Family Court ought to have exercised powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC since the relief sought was barred by law.
However, the Court granted liberty to the husband to seek divorce through any legally permissible method available under law on other valid grounds.
Case Details Section
Case Title: Smt. Rubina Kavi v. Rizwan Ali
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 773 of 2024 with Misc. Petition No. 5464 of 2024
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judge: Justice Vivek Jain
Date: April 22, 2026
