Madras High Court backs damages to Muslim wife, says Shariat not judicial body

Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench upheld the compensation for a Muslim wife subjected to domestic violence, emphasising that the Shariat Committee is a private body and does not have judicial authority.
The court’s decision comes in response to a civil revision petition filed by MA Rafi Ahamed, who sought to overturn a previous order that awarded his estranged wife, Vaseela Banu, Rs 5 lakh in compensation for domestic violence, along with Rs 25,000 for the maintenance of their minor child.
The case dates back to 2018 when Vaseela Banu filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She cited multiple instances of violence inflicted by her husband. In the initial ruling by the Judicial Magistrate Court, compensation was awarded to her, a decision later upheld by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in Tirunelveli on December 2, 2022.
During the hearings, Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Rafi Ahamed had attempted to end the marriage by pronouncing “Talaq” three times between 2017 and 2018. However, he failed to secure a judicial declaration confirming the dissolution of the marriage. The petitioner presented evidence of his divorce certificate issued by the Shariat Council of Tamil Nadu Towhead Jamath on November 29, 2017, but the judge emphasised that the Shariat Council lacks the authority of a court.
Rafi Ahamed had married another woman on January 28, 2018, shortly after his alleged divorce from Vaseela. However, Vaseela claimed that she had not received any notice regarding the third Talaq, rendering the divorce invalid to her.
“The certificate issued by the Chief Kazi of the Shariat Council does not constitute a legal divorce. Only courts duly constituted by the State can deliver judgments,” Justice Swaminathan remarked. He further stated that the revision petitioner had not provided any evidence to show that the third Talaq notice had been served to Vaseela Banu. Consequently, the judge ruled that the marriage was still valid, as no legal dissolution had occurred.