My satiric opinion on Uniform Civil Code

There is an custom in our colleges to dressed each and every student in an uniform irrespective of their size, personality, perspective and persona. The uniform they designed with respect to everyone is unacceptable by most of us as it infringes our liberty. The clothing we wears represent our personality and persona and a wonderful way to express ourselves. Even our constitution provides liberty in clothing and hence uniformity in colleges is unconstitutional. 

However, the reason provided for the forced uniformity by the university is athletic. They states that no matter from where do you arrive, why do you arrive and when did you arrive. The only thing matter is that you are here. The code applied in your home is accordance to their geographical, social and economic conditions, and hence will here. Thus, each and every student are obliged to wear uniform. 

This concept  is crystal clear to Britisher and hence they introduce common codes in order to built their kingdom and develop India as their colony. However, the sun of Great Britain set down and India got independence in 1947.The struggle of independence introduce two names infront- J.L. Nehru and M.K. Gandhi. These two people were only educated at that time and rest of the India is in state of illiterateness. Hence, they do not consider necessary to explain anything to anybody. 

When whole India needs uniform reform in civil code in order to establish India as one, our former prime minister introduce Hindu code bill, which was applicable on Hindu and any other religion evolved from Hinduism. Bill was introduced, bill was passed and established as an act.

Unfortunately, India wasn't only inhabited by Hindu's and hence soon problems arises as there was no uniformity in civil code for others. Soon, a name appears infront of the court Narssu Appa Mali, forget about the name, here what matters is his story. He was an Maharashtrian man who practice bigamy indisire of male offspring. However, polygamy is prohibited for Hindus and hence Appa produce infront of the court where he stated two bullets in his defense. 

• It was his religious right to have son for pind dan under art. 25
•  Punishment of bigamy for Hindu (IPC Sec.494) then why not for Muslims, which is direct violation of art.14 and art. 15.

Congratulation, bigamy is not the exploitation of women but the right of the man. Where a women should be outspoken for her exploitation, should ask government why she is denied of article 21, article 14 and article 15 even after seventy-three years of Independence, Men are struggling for their right. 

Lion & Society

There is not much difference in lions and humans. Lioness only need lion to protect lioness from other lions and rest they are useless. They are not wrong, wrong are the women who do not roar to them. But all lioness aren’t depressed, few of them outspoken such as Shah Bano. 

• Shah Bano, was married to Mohammed Ahmed khan, an affluent and well-known advocate in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, and five children with him. After 14 years, Khan took a younger woman as and after years living with wives, he divorced Shah Bano, who was 62 years. 
• In April 1978, when khan stopped giving her the ₹200/month he apparently promised, claiming that she had no means to support herself and her children, she filed a criminal suit in local court in Indore, against her husband, under section 125 of criminal procedure, asking him a maintenance amount of ₹500 for her and children.
• In November 1978 her husband gave an irrevocable talak up the defense that hence Bano had ceased to be his wife and therefore he was no under the Islamic law which was in total ₹5400/-
• In august 1979, the local court directed khan to pay a sum of ₹25/month to Bano by the way of maintenance.
• On July 1,1980, on a revisional application of Bano, the High court of Madhya Pradesh enhanced the amount of maintenance to ₹179.20/month.
• Khan then filed a petition to appeal before the supreme court claiming that Shah Bano is not his responsibility anymore because Mr. khan had a second marriage which is also permitted under Islamic law.
• On February 3,1981, the two judges bench composed of justice Murtaza Faisal Ali and A. Varadarajan who first heard the matter, in light if the earlier decision of the court which had held that section 125 of the code applies to Muslim also, referred Khan’s appeal to a larger bench.
• Muslim bodies All India Muslim personal law board and Jamiat Ulema-e-hind joined the case as intervenor.
• The case was heard by a five judges’ bench.
• On April 23,1985, Supreme court in a unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgement of the high court. 
• Supreme court concluded that “there is no conflict between the provision of section 125 and those of the Muslim personal law on the question of the Muslim husband obligation to provide maintenance for a divorced wife who is unable to maintain herself.”
• The Shah Bano  judgement, as claimed, became the center of raging controversy, with the press turning it into a major national issue.
• The Shah Bano  judgment elicited a protest from many sections of Muslim who also took the street against what they saw, and what they were led to believe, was an attack on their religion and their right to their own religious personal laws.

• In 1986, the parliament of India passed an act titled The Muslim women (protection of rights on Divorce) act,1986 that nullified the supreme court judgement in the Shah Bano case.

• Diluting the Supreme court judgement, the act allowed maintenance to a divorced woman only during the period of iddat, or till 90 days after the divorce, according to the provision of Islamic law.   

Noor Saba Khatoon case

• Noor Saba Khatoon & Mohammad Qasim got married in 1980 and produce three children.
• Qasim expelled Noor Khatoon out of their matrimonial home with their three children and refused to maintain her and her children.
• In 1993, Khatoon approached the local court and court ordered Mohammed Qasim to pay a maintenance of ₹200/month for Noor Khatoon and ₹150/month for each of the children.
• Qasim divorced Noor Khatoon and filed an application before the same court, asking for the modification of its order.

• He pleaded in court that since he had divorced Khatoon, Muslim women (protection of rights on divorce) act,1986 would apply, and under that law, he was duty bound to maintain his children only for two years after their birth. { Maybe the advisor of government are confused in between the offsprings of Human and animal. Huamn's offspring need atleast support for 12 to 14 years not only for 2 years. } 

• He then appealed to supreme court.

• Supreme court said: “the children of Muslim parents are entitled to claim maintenance under Cr.pc. sec. 125 for the period till they attain majority or able to and maintain themselves, whichever is earlier and in case and in case of females, till they get married, and this right is not restricted, affected or controlled by divorce wife’s right to claim maintenance for maintaining the infant/child in her custody for period of two years from the date of the child concerned under section 3(1)(b) of the 1986 act.     

Danial Latifi Case

• The MWPRDA,1986 seemed to overrule the supreme court’s decision in Khan V. Shah Bano.
• Pursuant to a prima facie reading of the MWPRDA,1986.

• The matter resurfaced before the supreme court in Daniel latifi V. union of the India when the constitutional validity of the MWPRDA,1986 was challenge on the ground that the law was discriminatory and violence of the right to equality guaranteed under art.14 of the Indian constitution as it deprived Muslim women of the maintenance benefits equivalent to those provided to other women under Cr.pc. sec.125.

• Further, it was argued that the law would leave Muslim women destitute and thus was violative of the right to life guaranteed under art.21 of the Indian constitution.

• The supreme court held that Muslim husband is liable to make reasonable and fair provision for the future of his divorced wife extending beyond the iddat period.
• The court based this interpretation on the word “provision” in MWPRDA,1986 indicating that “at the time of divorce the Muslim husband is required to contemplate the future needs (of his wife) and make preparatory arrangement in advance for meeting those needs.”

Shayara Bano Case

• Shayara Bano was married to Rizwan Ahmed for 15 years. In 2016, he divorced her through instantaneous triple talaq(talak-e-biddat)
• She filed a writ petition in the supreme court asking it to hold three practice- talak-e-biddat, polygamy, nikah-halala unconstitutional as they violate art.14,15,21,25.
• The AIMPLB has argued that uncodified Muslim personal law is not subject constitutional judicial review and that these are essential practice of the Islamic religion and protected under art.25 of constitution.
• On august 22,2017, the 5 judge bench pronounced its decision in the triple talak case, declaring the practice unconstitutional by 3:2 majority.

MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHT ON MARRIAGE) ACT,2019

• The MWPRM,2019is an act of the parliament on India criminalizing triple talak.
• In august 2017, the supreme court of the India declared talak, which enables muslim men to instantly divorce their wives, to be unconstitutional.
• In December 2017, citing the supreme court judgement and cases of triple talak in India, the government introduced MWPRM bill on 2017.
• The bill proposed to make triple talak in any form-spoken, in writing, or by electronic means-illegal and void.
• Punishment for breach of the law proposed to include up to three years imprisonment for the husband pronouncing triple talak.
• The act also entitles an aggrieved women to demand a maintenance for her dependent children.  

This is how we are escaping from providing freedom to significant portion of half population of India.  One nation, one law is the basic requirement of nation to succeed in any other domain.  The independence is incomplete if we are still struggling in providing equality before law in a democratic nation.