Man booked for giving triple talaq asks HC for pre-arrest bail

MUMBAI: In perhaps the first application seeking anticipatory bail under the new triple talaq ordinance, a Vasai resident has approached the Bombay high court after his wife lodged a case against him for trying to divorce her by resorting to the now-banned "instant talaq" method. Justice Prakash Naik will decide on Intekhab Alam Munshi's anticipatory bail application on Monday.
The Centre on September 19 approved the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Ordinance, 2018 that makes "triple talaq" a criminal offence punishable with a jail term of up to three years and a fine. According to the FIR lodged by Munshi's wife, he pronounced instant divorce or "talaq-e-biddat" just days later on September 22, by sending her a notice through his lawyer.

Munshi and his wife got married in December 1998 and have three children. This May, he dropped her off at her parents' place and in July, filed a civil suit in Vasai court seeking divorce. But on September 22, the woman received a notice claiming that her husband had divorced her through 'talaq-e-ahsan,' the legal marriage annulment option for Muslims which leaves room for reconciliation.

She then lodged a dowry harassment case against her husband and in-laws and on October 23, lodged a second FIR under the new law. She claimed her husband had not divorced her as per 'talaq-e-ahsan' and he had, actually, pronounced the now-banned 'talaq-e-biddat'.

The notice sent to her said that she was earlier served two notices, however, she denied having received any. Munshi claimed that two prior notices had returned with the remark "left" or "not found".

The wife further said that the divorce notice had not specified a reasonable cause and nor was she given an opportunity for compromise and reconciliation with her husband-two crucial ingredients of 'talaq-e-ahsan'. She also questioned the propriety of the divorce notice as Munshi had already filed a civil suit.

Last month, a sessions court in Palghar refused Munshi pre-arrest bail, following which he approached the high court through his lawyer Vincent Dsilva. Advocate Amin Solkar, counsel for the wife, opposed grant of anticipatory bail.

The sessions court said that Munshi had failed to justify that he was entitled to protection from arrest. "(Munshi) prima facie failed to demonstrate that the talaq given by him is 'talaq-e-ahsan'. On the contrary, it appears that it is a talaq prohibited under the 2018 ordinance," said the sessions court. "It is pertinent to note that even after return of the two unserved notices, (Munshi) has not informed his wife on social media or her mobile about notice of talaq," the sessions court added.

The sessions judge had pointed out that Munshi had also breached the conditions of the anticipatory bail given to him in the dowry harassment case, where he was asked to present himself before the Manor police for investigation purposes. The court had concluded that the investigation officer would have to investigate the type of talaq given by Munshi as well as the issue of the returned notices.