Summary
The Court granted anticipatory bail to a mother-in-law accused in an FIR involving triple talaq and matrimonial cruelty. The offence of pronouncing talaq under the 2019 Act can be committed by the Muslim husband, not his mother. Section 7(c) does not exclude anticipatory bail, but the married Muslim complainant must be heard before it is granted. The remaining cruelty allegations against the appellant were vague and general.
Issues
- Whether section 7(c) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act bars anticipatory bail.
- Whether the mother-in-law could be accused of the statutory talaq offence and should receive anticipatory bail on the allegations against her.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3 and 4, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019The prohibition and punishment for the pronouncement operate against the Muslim husband; his mother cannot commit that offence of pronouncing talaq upon his wife. (¶¶ 7–8, 19)
- Section 7(c), Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019The bail conditions require hearing the married Muslim woman and reasonable grounds; they do not displace anticipatory-bail jurisdiction. (¶¶ 8–11, 18)
- Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Anticipatory bail remains available on harmonious construction with section 7(c), subject to the complainant-hearing requirement; interim protection may be considered after notice. (¶ 9–18)
Held
- The 2019 Act contains no express exclusion of section 438. Its non-obstante clause operates only within the matters addressed by section 7; requiring reasonable grounds and a hearing does not abolish anticipatory-bail jurisdiction. Before granting anticipatory bail for an offence under the Act, the competent court must hear the married Muslim woman who complained. (¶ 9–18)
- Pending that application, the court has discretion to grant ad-interim relief after issuing notice to the married Muslim woman. The requirement of a hearing before the grant of anticipatory bail remains applicable. (¶ 18)
- The statutory talaq allegation concerned the appellant’s son, not the appellant. The general, vague cruelty allegations lacked particulars, and the High Court had supplied no reason for denying her bail. These circumstances justified anticipatory bail; the husband’s separate request had already not been entertained and was not allowed by this judgment. (¶¶ 2–4, 8, 19–20)
Result
Appeal allowed. In the event of arrest, appellant to be released on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 and to cooperate with the investigation; pending applications disposed of.