The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that private religious bodies such as Sharia courts or Dar-ul-Qaza have no legal authority to grant divorce or pass binding orders altering a person’s marital status.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held that such bodies may offer religious opinions or guidance, but their decisions cannot be treated as orders of a court established by law or enforced through legal or coercive processes.
Court declares Raipur Sharia court order void
The ruling came on a petition filed by 38-year-old Raipur resident Nirosh Abbasi, who challenged an order issued by the Idara-E-Shariya Islami Court in Raipur on January 18, 2022.
The order had declared that Abbasi’s marriage to her second husband, Mohammad Abid Khan, had ended through divorce.
Abbasi had already initiated legal proceedings against her husband and in-laws, alleging harassment and cruelty. She lodged a complaint in October 2021, following which an FIR was registered at the women police station in Raipur under Section 498-A and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
During the dispute, the Idara-E-Shariya issued its order declaring her divorced.
Abbasi approached the High Court, challenging the religious body’s authority to determine her marital status while statutory proceedings were pending.
The court subsequently declared the January 18, 2022 order void and held that it had no legal effect.
Religious opinions cannot determine marital rights
The State argued before the court that the Constitution does not recognise parallel religious courts with judicial authority.
The Idara-E-Shariya, in its response, maintained that it was an advisory and religious body functioning under Article 25 of the Constitution and that its opinions were based on the Quran and Shariat and were not legally binding.
Mohammad Abid Khan, meanwhile, claimed that he had independently pronounced Talaq-e-Hasan on three occasions in 2021 because of marital discord. He argued that the Sharia body’s communication merely recorded the divorce he had already pronounced.
The High Court, however, distinguished between a religious opinion and a legally enforceable determination.
Justice Prasad observed that institutions such as Idara-E-Shariya and Dar-ul-Qaza do not have the legal status of courts established under the Constitution or statutory law. They cannot assume the functions of family courts or issue binding orders determining civil or marital rights.
“Religion may guide an individual’s conscience and personal faith, but no religious institution or private body can be permitted to assume the authority of a court established by law,” the court said.
The court also made clear that its ruling was confined to the authority of the private religious body. It did not adjudicate the broader constitutional validity of the particular form of divorce claimed by the husband.
