The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted anticipatory bail to a man charged of allegedly giving triple talaq to his wife, which is now illegal by law.
Justice Prakash Naik — while granting the plea filed by Intekhab Alam Munshi, under sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (a) (c) of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) ordinance — directed him to appear before the Manor police twice a month for the next two months.
He was granted anticipatory bail on a personal bond of Rs 50,000. Munshi was also directed not to leave the jurisdiction of the police station without informing the police, not to tamper with the evidence or threaten witnesses.
Munshi's 40-year-old wife had complained to the police saying that he divorced her in violation of the ordinance. However, Munshi claimed that he had sent two notices earlier, which the wife didn't receive, and hence he didn't violate the law. The wife, on the other hand, has claimed that Munshi had manipulated the dates of the notices to suit the law, and it was indeed triple talaq.
The couple married in December 1998 and has three children. According to the complaint, the woman on September 22 this year received a talaq (divorce) notice. It was mentioned in the notice that two notices had already been served to the complainant and hence this notice is a 'Talaq-e-Ahsan', which is legal. However, according to the complainant, she has not received any notice before this one and hence it was Talaq-e-Biddat, which is prohibited as per the law and is in breach of the provision of the ordinance.
Advocate Amin Solkar, who appeared for the wife had argued that the dates of notices mentioned by the accused have been manipulated in order to show that talaq was given as per the law. The court, after going through the documents, held that since all the necessary documents are seized by the police, custodial interrogation was not required.
POINTING FINGERS
- The complainant said her husband divorced her in violation of the triple talaq ordinance
- The accused, in his defence, claimed he sent two notices earlier which his wife didn’t receive
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Bombay High Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}