Unit II — Divorce, Maintenance & Legitimacy
“Triple talaq is manifestly arbitrary… and is set aside.” — Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
Modes of Talak — Dissolution by the Husband
Talak is the husband’s unilateral power to dissolve the marriage by words of repudiation. Classical law grades it from the most approved to the condemned form — and in 2017 the Supreme Court struck down the worst of them.
flowchart TD
ROOT["Modes of Talak"]:::root
ROOT --> SUN["Talak-ul-Sunnat<br/>(Approved)"]:::approved
ROOT --> BID["Talak-ul-Biddat<br/>(Disapproved)"]:::disapproved
ROOT --> OTH["Other Forms"]:::other
SUN --> AH["Ahsan<br/>Single pronouncement<br/>in a purity period<br/>Revocable during iddat"]:::leaf
SUN --> HA["Hasan<br/>3 pronouncements in<br/>3 separate purity periods<br/>Irrevocable after the 3rd"]:::leaf
BID --> TR["Triple Talak<br/>3 in ONE sitting<br/>Immediately irrevocable<br/>UNCONSTITUTIONAL<br/>(Shayara Bano 2017)"]:::void
OTH --> IL["Ila<br/>Vow of abstinence<br/>for 4+ months"]:::other2
OTH --> ZI["Zihar<br/>Wife compared to<br/>mother's back; penance"]:::other2
classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:2px,color:#000;
classDef approved fill:#D4EDDA,stroke:#155724,color:#000;
classDef disapproved fill:#F8D7DA,stroke:#721C24,color:#000;
classDef other fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
classDef void fill:#F8D7DA,stroke:#721C24,stroke-width:2px,color:#000;
classDef other2 fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#856404,color:#000;
linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;
Ahsan (single pronouncement in a tuhr, no intercourse, revocable during iddat) is the most approved because it leaves the door open to reconciliation. Hasan is three pronouncements across three successive purity periods. Talak-ul-Biddat — three pronouncements in one sitting, instantly irrevocable — was condemned by the Quran yet practised for centuries until Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) declared it unconstitutional and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 made it a criminal offence. Ila (vow of abstinence for 4+ months) and Zihar (comparing the wife to one’s mother’s back, requiring penance) are older constructive-divorce forms.
Iddat is the waiting period: 3 menstrual cycles (talak/khula), 4 months 10 days (death of husband), or until delivery (if pregnant). After an irrevocable talak the parties cannot remarry each other unless the wife genuinely marries another, that marriage is consummated and then ends (halala) — a sham “nikah halala” arranged purely to enable remarriage is invalid.
Divorce by the Wife & by the Court
flowchart TD
ROOT["Dissolution of<br/>Muslim Marriage"]:::root
ROOT --> H["By Husband<br/>(Talak)"]:::branch
ROOT --> W["By Wife<br/>(with consent)"]:::branch
ROOT --> M["By Mutual Consent"]:::branch
ROOT --> CT["By Court<br/>(DMMA 1939)"]:::branch
W --> K["Khul'a<br/>Wife returns dower<br/>for freedom<br/>Husband must consent"]:::leaf
W --> L["Lian<br/>False adultery charge<br/>→ court dissolution"]:::leaf
M --> MU["Mubara't<br/>Both agree to dissolve<br/>Mutual release"]:::leaf
classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:2px,color:#000;
classDef branch fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
classDef leaf fill:#D4EDDA,stroke:#155724,color:#000;
linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;
Khul’a is divorce at the wife’s initiative — she returns her dower (or pays compensation) in exchange for freedom, but it requires the husband’s consent; if he demands an excessive sum the court may reduce it. Mubara’t is mutual divorce by consent. Lian lets a court dissolve the marriage where the husband falsely charges the wife with adultery and she denies it on oath. Where the husband simply refuses, the wife’s remedy is the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, whose Section 2 grounds include: the husband’s whereabouts unknown for 4 years, failure to maintain for 2 years, imprisonment of 7+ years, failure of marital obligations for 3 years, impotence, insanity/leprosy/venereal disease, repudiation of a child marriage (option of puberty), and cruelty (broadly defined).
Maintenance of a Divorced Muslim Woman
This is the most politically charged topic in the subject. Classical law ends the husband’s duty at the close of iddat; Indian statute and the Supreme Court extended it far beyond.
flowchart TD
ROOT["Maintenance of<br/>Divorced Muslim Woman"]:::root
ROOT --> A["During Marriage<br/>(Nafqa)"]:::branch
ROOT --> B["During Iddat<br/>(by husband — mandatory)"]:::branch
ROOT --> C["Post-Iddat"]:::branch
C --> C1["MWA 1986 S.3<br/>Fair provision +<br/>dower + gifts"]:::act
C --> C2["Danial Latifi 2001:<br/>Provision must cover<br/>her entire future life"]:::case
C --> C3["If inadequate:<br/>Section 125 CrPC<br/>still available<br/>(Iqbal Bano 2007)"]:::fallback
C --> C4["If husband can't pay:<br/>Relatives → Wakf Board"]:::fallback
classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:2px,color:#000;
classDef branch fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
classDef act fill:#D4EDDA,stroke:#155724,color:#000;
classDef case fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#856404,color:#000;
classDef fallback fill:#F8D7DA,stroke:#721C24,color:#000;
linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;
The Shah Bano lineage is the spine of any answer here:
- Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) — Section 125 CrPC applies to divorced Muslim women; a 73-year-old divorced after 43 years was held entitled to maintenance.
- Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — enacted in response; Section 3 gives the divorced woman fair provision during iddat, child maintenance for 2 years, her full dower, and the return of all her property; if the husband cannot pay, the duty cascades to her relatives and then the State Wakf Board.
- Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) — the words “reasonable and fair provision” in S.3 mean the husband must secure her entire post-divorce future, not just the iddat period.
- Iqbal Bano v. State of UP (2007) — S.125 CrPC remains concurrently available if the 1986 Act’s relief is inadequate.
✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)
Problem: A Hanafi Muslim divorced his wife by a single pronouncement of talak. After the pronouncement, the couple continued to live together and three children were born. Is the cohabitation valid, and are the children legitimate?
I — Issue
Whether cohabitation after a single (Ahsan) talak revokes the divorce, and whether children born thereafter are legitimate.
R — Rule
- A single pronouncement of talak (the Ahsan form) is revocable during the iddat period
- Cohabitation during iddat amounts to revocation (ruju) — no formal ceremony is required (Rashid Ahmed v. Anisa Khatun, 1932)
- On valid revocation the marriage continues, and children born thereafter are legitimate
A — Analysis
The decoy is the bare word “divorced” — a student may assume the divorce was complete and final. But an Ahsan talak is the most approved and revocable form; the very purpose of the iddat waiting period is to allow reconciliation. Resumed cohabitation operates in law as ruju (revocation), reviving the marriage automatically. That three children were born is compelling evidence the couple cohabited and thereby revoked the talak. Had this been an irrevocable Talak-ul-Biddat the analysis would differ — but a single pronouncement is, by definition, revocable.
C — Conclusion
The cohabitation was a valid revocation (ruju) of the talak; the marriage subsisted throughout; and all three children are legitimate.
📄 The full PDF bundle has more problems for Unit II — including the Khula-for-Rs.10-lakhs scenario, the Shah Bano / Danial Latifi maintenance problem, the DMMA-1939 grounds essay, full coverage of legitimacy, acknowledgement of paternity, Hizanat custody and apostasy, plus the complete Master Case List. Get the bundle — ₹149