Islamic courts like "Qazi's Court", "Kaziyat's Court (Darul Qaza)" or "Sharia Court' have no recognition in law, the Supreme Court has reiterated. The court made it clear that any direction given by them is not applicable in law and neither are their decisions binding.
A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah -- while hearing an appeal by a woman seeking alimony on February 4 -- cited a 2014 judgment that said Shariat courts and fatwas do not have legal recognition.
The woman was refused alimony by the family court which had relied on a settlement deed filed before an Islamic court. The decision was upheld by the Allahabad High Court.
Criticising the approach of the Family Court, Justice Amanullah underscored that 'Qazi Court', '(Darul Qaza) Kaziyat Court', 'Sharia Court' and similar others have no recognition in law. Their decision is not binding and no one can be coerced into accepting it.
The exception was when the affected parties voluntarily accept the decision and act upon it and such action is not in conflict with the law of the land. Even then, such decisions will be valid only between the parties who choose to accept it and not for a third party, the top court said.
The judges also criticized the reasoning of the Family Court that since it was the second marriage of both parties, there was no possibility of the husband demanding dowry. Such a conclusion is conjecture and shows an ignorance of law, the top court said.
The bench directed the woman's former husband to pay Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance. This payment should date from the time she went to the family court, the judges decided.
The woman was married in September 2002 through Islamic ceremony. It was the second marriage for both. Her husband divorced her in 2009 through an Islamic court.
The woman then approached the Family Court seeking maintenance, but it rejected her claim pointing out that her husband had not abandoned her. She herself was the main cause of the dispute and departure from the matrimonial home due to her nature and conduct, the Family Court said.
