2020 (12) TMI 1379 - SC - Indian Laws

Court allows appeal, mother-in-law exempt from triple talaq accusation. Anticipatory bail possible under Act.

Rahna Jalal Versus State of Kerala and Another

Rahna Jalal Versus State of Kerala and Another - TMI Issues Involved1. Justification for the denial of anticipatory bail by the High Court.2. Applicability of Section 438 of the CrPC in light of Section 7(c) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.3. Legal interpretation of Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.4. Examination of the allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC.Detailed Analysis1. Justification for the Denial of Anticipatory Bail by the High CourtThe primary issue in the appeal was whether the High Court was justified in declining the prayer for anticipatory bail moved by the appellant. The High Court had observed that the appellant’s son was enjoying with his second wife while the matrimonial relationship with the de facto complainant was in existence. However, the order of the High Court contained no reasons for denying anticipatory bail to the appellant.2. Applicability of Section 438 of the CrPC in Light of Section 7(c) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019The appellant’s counsel argued that Section 7(c) of the Act does not expressly prohibit the exercise of the power of the court to grant anticipatory bail. The court noted that Section 7(c) requires the Magistrate to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for granting bail and to hear the married Muslim woman upon whom talaq is pronounced. The court emphasized that the non-obstante clause in Section 7 does not override Section 438 of the CrPC, as there is no explicit provision in the Act making Section 438 inapplicable.3. Legal Interpretation of Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019Sections 3 and 4 of the Act render the pronouncement of talaq void and illegal and make it punishable with imprisonment. The court noted that these provisions apply specifically to Muslim husbands. Section 7(c) indicates that no person accused of an offence under the Act shall be released on bail unless the Magistrate is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for granting bail and has heard the married Muslim woman. The court held that Section 7(c) does not impose an absolute bar on granting bail but requires procedural compliance.4. Examination of the Allegations under Section 498-A of the IPCThe court observed that the allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC were vague and general in nature, lacking specific details. The Judicial Magistrate First Class-I, North Parur, had previously found no substance in the allegations against the appellant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Given the nature of the allegations and the appellant’s relationship with the second respondent, the court concluded that the appellant should not be denied anticipatory bail.ConclusionThe court concluded that there is no bar on granting anticipatory bail for an offence under the Act, provided the competent court hears the married Muslim woman who has made the complaint. The appellant, being the mother-in-law, cannot be accused of the offence of pronouncement of triple talaq. The court directed that in the event of the appellant's arrest, she shall be released on bail upon filing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 and cooperating with the investigation. The appeal was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.