RELATION OF UNIFORM CIVIL CODE WITH ARTICLE 14 AND 15

In all modern countries there is usually one common law for everybody. In fact in India there
is one common criminal law (IPC and Cr PC) for everybody, and the land laws (e.g. the UP
Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951) for everyone. Nobody objected to that, though many of these
laws are against the Muslim law. For instance, Muslim law provides for stoning to death for
women committing adultery, but that would be illegal under the IPC.

The injustice in Muslim Law can be seen in the fact that a Muslim husband can divorce his
wife by simply saying ‘talaq, talaq, talaq’, without ascribing any reason, whereas a Muslim
wife cannot do so. She has to file a petition in court, which usually takes years to decide, and
she must make out a ground (e.g. cruelty, adultery, etc.).

Thus there is discrimination against the wife in two ways:

1. A Muslim husband can get a divorce immediately without going to court by immediately
pronouncing a triple talaq or even sending a letter mentioning the triple talaq, whereas the
wife who seeks divorce has to go to court and file a petition which usually takes years to
decide.

2. The Muslim husband need not give any ground for divorce, he can divorce his wife
whimsically or merely because he has lost interest in her, whereas a Muslim wife has to plead
some ground for divorce mentioned in section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act,
1939, and she has to produce witnesses or documentary evidence in support of that ground,
and prove it. This is not only very unjust to the wife, it is also violation of Articles 14, 15 and
21 of the Constitution.

Article 15(3) of the Constitution states that there can be no law against women, but there can
be a law in their favour. The Muslim law of divorce is directly contrary to Article 15(3).

There was a case where a Muslim girl was married to a Muslim young man who had come
from England to marry her. It was an arranged marriage. After the wedding in India the
young man went back to England alone, saying that he will arrange for his wife to come to
England, but instead of doing so he sent a letter of talaq within a month. The girl almost
committed suicide.

When the Supreme Court gave a progressive judgment in Shah Bano’s case many Muslims
raised a hue and cry against it, saying it was against the shariat that judgment said that a
Muslim husband has to give maintenance to his wife if he divorces her. This was a
humanitarian judgment, because who will support a divorced woman (who may have
children) except her husband? All over the world a husband has to give maintenance to his
wife if he divorces her. Why then should it be different for Muslims? Muslims should have
supported this judgment, but instead most of them raised big a hue and cry saying it is against
the shariat and Rajiv Gandhi, afraid to lose his Muslim vote bank, legislatively repealed the
ruling.
The Muslim law is that if a husband divorces his wife he cannot straightaway thereafter
remarry her. After the divorce the woman must marry some other man, and the marriage must
be consummated, and only if thereafter the second husband divorces her can the first husband
remarry her. Is this rational?

A Muslim man can marry 4 wives, but a woman can, at a time, have only one husband. Now
monogamy represents equality between man and woman, and this is the age of equality. So
why polygamy should be permitted to Muslim males? It may be mentioned that up to 1955 a
Hindu male could have unlimited number of wives, whereas a woman could have only one
husband. This law was altered by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for
monogamy.

It can be seen that much of the Muslim personal law is totally outdated and inhuman, but it is
not allowed to be changed due to vote bank politics.