The Gauhati High Court has held that Talaq-E-Hassan is a valid form of talaq and is not prohibited in India as of now, while directing a petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Marriage and Divorce Registrar for registration of the divorce under the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024.
The order was passed by Justice Arun Dev Choudhury on September 8, 2026, in a writ petition concerning registration of a divorce pronounced through Talaq-E-Hassan.
Background of the Case
According to the petition, the petitioner had married respondent no. 5 in 2016. The parties later developed differences, and the wife allegedly left the matrimonial home in 2018. The petitioner stated that attempts at reconciliation did not succeed.
He subsequently pronounced Talaq-E-Hassan on three separate dates - March 22, April 26 and May 27, 2026. He then approached the concerned authority for registration of the divorce under the applicable law.
The petitioner argued that Talaq-E-Hassan was not prohibited and that the divorce had been pronounced in accordance with its requirements. The State, however, submitted that the earlier 1935 legislation had been repealed and the authority appointed under that law could no longer register the divorce.
Court’s Observation
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, which explains the three successive pronouncements involved in Talaq-E-Hassan. The first two pronouncements can be revoked, while the third pronouncement, if the required conditions are fulfilled, makes the talaq irrevocable.
The Court noted that the petitioner had made the three pronouncements on March 22, April 26 and May 27, 2026.
"Noticing that the Talaq-E-Hassan as pronounced by the petitioner herein is a valid form of Talaq and not prohibited as on date in the country, this Court hereby requires the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Marriage & Divorce Registrar, under the provisions of the said Act of 2024, for registration of the divorce."
Decision
The Court declined to direct the earlier Barpeta authority to register the Talaqnama because the 1935 law had been repealed and the post created under it had been abolished.
Instead, the petitioner was directed to approach the jurisdictional Marriage and Divorce Registrar under the 2024 Act. The Registrar must examine whether the divorce was effected by the petitioner and verify his identity before deciding whether registration is required under Section 12.
If registration is refused, the petitioner may pursue the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the 2024 Act.
The Court also clarified that respondent no. 5, who was not present despite service of notice, remained free to challenge the Talaq-E-Hassan before an appropriate forum.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: X v. State of Assam & 4 Ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/4163/2026
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
Decision Date: September 8, 2026
