F AMILY LAW

of Muslims, Parsis and Christians of India

(Mumbai University Academic Council accepted ‘Administrative Law’ by
Mr. I.A. Saiyed as Reference – Book for LL.B. Degree Course on recommendations of Board
of Studies in Law – See Circular No. UG/214 of 2011 of University of Mumbai.)

By
I.A. SAIYED
Advocate, Notary and Law Professor

Foreword by

ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED

© AUTHOR
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any f orm
or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording and/or otherwise without the prior
written permission of the author and the publisher.

First Edition : 1991

Reprint : 2001
Second Revised Edition : 2004
Reprint : 2006, 2008
Third Revised Edition : 2010
Reprint : 2015, 2016, 2017
Fourth Revised Edition : 2019

Published by : Mrs. Meena Pandey for Himalaya Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.,
Ramdoot, Dr. Bhalerao Marg, Girgaon, Mumbai - 400 004
Phone: 022-23860170/23863863; Fax: 022-23877178
E-mail: himpub@vsnl.com; Website: www.himpub.com
Branch Offices :
New Delhi : Pooja Apartments, 4-B, Murari Lal Street, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi - 110 002. Phone: 011-23270392, 23278631; Fax: 011-23256286
Nagpur : Kundanlal Chandak Industrial Estate, Ghat Road, Nagpur - 440 018.
Phone: 0712-2738731, 3296733; Telefax: 0712-2721216
Bengaluru : Plot No. 91-33, 2nd Main Road, Seshadripuram, Behind Nataraja Theatre,
Bengaluru - 560 020. Phone: 080-41138821;
Mobile: 09379847017, 09379847005
Hyderabad : No. 3-4-184, Lingampally, Besides Raghavendra Swamy Matham, Kachiguda,
Hyderabad - 500 027. Phone: 040-27560041, 27550139
Chennai : New No. 48/2, Old No. 28/2, Ground Floor, Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar,
Chennai-600 012. Mobile: 09380460419
Pune : First Floor, Laksha Apartment, No. 527, Mehunpura, Shaniwarpeth
(Near Prabhat Theatre), Pune - 411 030. Phone: 020-24496323, 24496333;
Mobile: 09370579333
Lucknow : House No. 731, Shekhupura Colony, Near B.D. Convent School, Aliganj,
Lucknow - 226 022. Phone: 0522-4012353; Mobile: 09307501549
Ahmedabad : 114, SHAIL, 1st Floor, Opp. Madhu Sudan House, C.G. Road, Navrang Pura,
Ahmedabad - 380 009. Phone: 079-26560126; Mobile: 09377088847
Ernakulam : 39/176 (New No. 60/251), 1st Floor, Karikkamuri Road, Ernakulam,
Kochi - 682011. Phone: 0484-2378012, 2378016; Mobile: 09387122121
Bhubaneswar : Plot No. 214/1342, Budheswari Colony, Behind Durga Mandap,
Bhubaneswar - 751 006. Phone: 0674-2575129; Mobile: 09338746007
Kolkata : 108/4, Beliaghata Main Road, Near ID Hospital, Opp. SBI Bank, Kolkata - 700 010,
Phone: 033-32449649; Mobile: 07439040301
DTP by : Sudhakar Shetty/Sneha
Printed at : Geetanjali Press Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur. On behalf of HPH.
 S.C. DHARMADHlKARI 3, ‘SARANG’
JUDGE GENERAL J. BHOSALE MARG
MUMBAI 400021
Tel.: 2287 61 63
2288 38 63

FOREWORD TO THE THIRD EDITION

The Dictionary meaning of the word Family is “a brotherhood of Persons or Nations
United by Political or Religious Ties.” If one looks at the word from this broad perspective,
then the need for Laws, Rules, Regulations to preserve and foster the ties is better appreciated.
For the survival of the family as an Institution, it is necessary to regulate the functioning of
the same. It is incumbent, then, to define and set out the Mutual Rights and Obligations.
Ultimately, the fraternity and brotherhood of those within the Institution helps them in
interacting with others. The Constitution of India while recognising and guaranteeing freedom
of religion envisages this spirit so that there is not only respect for each other, but there
is “Unity in Diversity.” If the Constitutional Goal as set out in the Preamble to the same is
to be achieved and fulfilled, then it is necessary that the basic Foundation of the Family as
an Institution is strengthened and the Nation progresses as a whole. Ultimately, laws assist
in removing disparities and inequalities and creating an equitable and just society. Laws
relating to family aim at ending all discrimination and treating men, women and children
alike. Therefore, it is imperative that such laws are known to all. They ought to be publicised
widely so that the best of all religions comes to the fore. This also helps in removing
deficiencies and shortfalls within them while fostering brotherhood and respect for all
religions. Further, some myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings are also eliminated
in such process.
This compilation assists in informing and educating on the aspects of marriage, divorce
and succession in three prominent religions. That the compilation is comprehensive and
complete is apparent from the fact that the Author had to reprint it in 2001 after its first
publication in 1999. The second Revised Edition came in 2004. This is the third attempt and
now the author has incorporated important developments including modifications and
changes, if any. The Author needs to be commended for this effort. If a strong, independent,
socialist, democratic and secular Republic is the need of the hour, then such publications
create the right atmosphere. It is useful to all, including lawyers and students of law.
I wish the book all success and once again congratulate the Author.

(Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari)

Justice (Smt.) Nishita Mhatre 4, Matru Smriti,
13th Road, Khar (W),
Mumbai - 400 052.
Tel.: 2648 17 14

FOREWORD TO THE SECOND EDITION

Mr. Saiyed has undertaken an enormous task of compiling the marriage and
divorce laws applicable to Muslims, Parsis and Christians in India. The book also

includes the Indian Succession Act. The author has, in his inimitable style, explained
the provisions of the law. The latest case law has been discussed.

The book should prove to be a boon for all students of law.

21st April, 2003 (Nishita Mhatre)

Justice R.J. KOCHAR

FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION

Mr. Imtiaz A. Saiyed, a friend for mine and a learned friend of others in the profession,
doesn’t appear to believe in the planning of his family of books, though personally he has
neatly planned his family. His creativity in the field of book-writing has continued incessantly.
I had an opportunity to read his earlier three books on the law subjects. This is the fourth
book which he is handed over to me and other class of readers, i.e., the law students and
law practitioners, as also to those who have interest to know about the Personal laws. I
have gone through this compendium of the eight enactments of personal laws governing
the minorities in our country, i.e., the followers of Islam, Parsis and Christians. This compilation
of the personal laws of the aforesaid three minority communities will instantaneously
facilitate the students as well as lawyers while comparing the different topics or subjects
under different enactments governing the minorities. The author who is also a practising
lawyer and a law teacher, having found the practical difficulties of the students as well as
the law practitioners in the court of law to get all the enactments at a time whenever
needed and whenever issues are required to be compared with each other for final dissection
and analysis of the law points, has rendered a yeomen service to all the concerned in this
field. This is the advantage of an author who is also a law teacher as well as a law
practitioner, as he knows where the shoe pinches at the time of teaching and practising.
Many a times, some enactments are not readily available when required. This book will
completely satisfy the momentary and important needs of the students, teachers and
lawyers. Even the common man who has curiosity to know what are the provisions in the
personal laws of the different communities can enrich himself by going through these
pages.
In his commentary, the Author has tried to simplify the provisions of the Mohammedan
Law by giving proper explanations and also the case law. The reading of his lucid commentary
of the Mohammed in Law definitely gives an impression of his own objectivity. He has, in
simple language, explained the various complicated topics of the personal law governing
the Muslims of this country. He has also taken equal pains to deal with the other personal
laws and their respective topics such as Marriage, Divorce, Succession, Guardianship, etc.
According to me, this book will be of immense help to the law students as well as the
law practitioners. It would also be of tremendous use to the Judges and common people
who will find all the personal laws of the minority communities, together at one united
place which the Author has created. I hope, like in this book, all the communities in this
country get together and bel united and the least they can do is to co-exist peacefully and
to prosper in their own interest which will also be in the national interest.

(R.J. KOCHAR)
Judge
Mumbai Bombay High Court
25.12.1998
 PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION

With immense pleasure, I put in the hands of my readers the Fourth Edition of my new
Compendium of Family Law of Muslims, Parsis and Christians of India. I first thank my
readers for they have well received my earlier edition of this Compendium.
The classic historic judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on Triple Tallaq
has given immediate cause to me to revise this Compendium. The ruling has also unfolded
the need of Uniform Civil Code and I have failed not in writing on it in this edition of my
Compendium.
I know it is most difficult for anyone to spare time for writing a foreword. But the
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Karnik of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay
without any hesitation agreed to give foreword and that too in shortest period of time. I
thank him for his gracious act of giving foreword to my Compendium of Family Law of
Muslims, Parsis and Christians of India.
I thank Mr. N.M. Rajadhyksha, the Principal of New Law College, Mumbai for, without
his inspiration, my Compendium would not have seen the light of the day. Professor Ajit
J. Kenjale, Advocate practicing in Bombay High Court, childlike, was always with me to help
me in my time of real difficulties. So also Learned Advocates practicing in the Bombay High
Court, Mr. Satyajeet H. Joshi and Mr. Sandeep V. Mahadik were giving unstinted help to me
unfailingly. I have no words to express my thanks, but I thank them all very much for their
help and assistance to me. Ms. Ayesha Saiyed, a Law Student of Swami Vivekanand Law
College, Mumbai ventured to take up the proof reading work and completed it in record
time. I thank her for invaluable contribution in publication of this Compendium.
I cannot forget the entire team of Himalaya Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. because, without
them, it would have been impossible to bring out this book and publish it so successfully.
I thank the entire team.
I welcome the criticism from my readers because it guides me to raise the standard
of this book.

Mumbai
25th December, 2018 I.A. Saiyed
 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

The University of Mumbai has newly introduced the FAMILY LAW – I subject in the First
Year LL.B. Course. It includes, the Mohammedan Law (other than Property Law), the
Christian Marriages Act, The Indian Divorce Act, the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act and the
Indian Succession Act (up to Section 166 only).
This, FAMILY LAW, book is designed especially for the First Year LL.B. students of
Mumbai University but, I am sure, it should also be quite useful to the students of other
universities and the junior advocates. The busy senior advocates and the judges should
also find it useful as this book gives exactly what they need, the Bare Act, a brief discussion
and the Case Laws.
I am very much grateful to Mr. Justice R.J. KOCHAR of the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature at Mumbai for readily agreeing to write a FOREWORD to this book and for his
having done so — before the period of limitation. Indeed, I am also thankful to my friend
Prof. G.H. HAMLANI, Advocate, High Court, because without him, this book would not have
seen the light of the day. I will be failing in my duty if I fail to thank my friend, H.M. SOLKAR,
Advocate, High Court who has given his help in searching case laws. No doubt, the Himalaya
Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. also deserve a basketful of thanks and I do offer them without
any reservation. Last but not the least, I am also thankful to my readers.
I have taken utmost care to see that no mistakes and discrepancies are left out. But
still if there be any, I offer my regrets. I will be grateful if the mistakes, discrepancies and/
or any suggestions are sent to me for it will help me in improving the next Edition, undoubtedly,
if there be any. I know that only criticism helps in improving and I am eagerly awaiting the
criticism of this book.

Mumbai I.A. Saiyed

25-12-1998
 CONTENTS

CASE LAWS (xi) – (xix)

BOOK-1 MUSLIM LAW (COMMENTARY) 1-101

1. Introduction 3-29
2. Marriage — Nikah 30-45
3. Mahar — Dowar 46-49
4. Dissolution of Marriage 50-80
5. Maintenance 81-88
6. Paternity 89-91
7. Guardianship/Custody 92-101

BOOK-2 BARE ACTS 103-129

1. The Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and
Registration of Marriages Act, 1998
(Maharashtra Act No. XX of 1999) 105-110
2. Shariat Act — The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
Application Act, 1937, Act No. XXVI of 1937 [7th October 1937] 111-112
3. The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 Act VIII of 1939 113-114
4. Maintenance Act — The Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 115-117
5. The Family Courts (Court) Rules, 1988 by Bombay High Court
and The Maharashtra Family Court Rules, 1987 118-127
6. The K azis Act, 1880 (Act No. 12 of 1880) – An Act for the
Appointment of Persons to the Office of K azi [9th July, 1880) 128-129

BOOK-3 THE PARSI MARRIAGE AND

DIVORCE ACT, 1936 (COMMENTARY) 131-194
1. Parsi Marriages 133-139
2. Dissolution of Parsi Marriage 140-176
3. Alimony under Parsi Law 177-184
4. Custody of Children under Parsi Law 185-188
5. Parsi Matrimonial Courts 189-194

BOOK-4 BARE ACT: THE PARSI MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ACT, 1936 195-209
The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (Bare Act) 197-209
BOOK-5 COMMENTARY ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE ACT, 1872 211-222
Commentary on Christian Marriage Act 213-222

BOOK-6 BARE ACT: THE INDIAN CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE ACT, 1872 223-243
The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 [18th July 1872]
Bare Act 225-243

BOOK-7 INDIAN DIVORCE ACT (COMMENTARY) 245-278

1. Introduction 247-251
2. Dissolution of Christian Marriage 252-262
3. Alimony under Christian Law 263-268
4. Custody of Children of Christians 269-273
5. Practice and Procedure under
Indian Divorce Act 274-278

BOOK-8 BARE ACT: THE DIVORCE ACT, 1869 279-291

The Divorce Act, 1869 281-291

BOOK-9 INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 (COMMENTARY) 293-361

1. Introduction 295-300
2. Domicile 301-305
3. Inheritance (For other than Parsis) 306-317
4. Law of Inheritance for Parsis 318-322
5. Testamentary Succession 323-361

BOOK-10 THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925

(BARE ACT UPTO SECTIONS 166) 363-411
The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Bare Act Upto Sections 166) 365-411

SUBJECT INDEX 413-421

GLOSSARY 422-432
 CASE LAWS

A
A vs. B, 1982 (1) Bom. C.R. 236 165
A vs. B, AIR 1993 Bom. 61 148
A vs. B, AIR 2001 Ker. 71 262
A vs. H 1992 Mh L.J. 791 165
(2003) 2 SCC 45 329
14 M.I.A. 309 71
(1966) 68 Bom LR 794 134
(1970) 74 Cal. W.N. 51 185
AIR 1961 Pat 87 29
AIR 1976 Bom. 246 184
AIR 1964 Bom. 124 184
A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 935 941 185
A.I.R. 1982 SC 1276 176
AIR 1957 SC 176 160
AIR 1951 Bom. 40 134
AIR 1945 Bom. 537 (542) 134
A.I.R. 1974 Cal 111 185
Abdul K adir vs. Salim (1886) 8 All. 149 (154-55) 42
Abdul vs Provider AIR 1954 Mad 95 11
Abdul Kalam vs. Akhtari Bibi, AIR 1988 Orissa 279 40
Abdul Rahim (Dr) Undre vs. Smt. Padma, AIR 1982 Bom. 341 67
Abdul Razzak vs Aga Mohammed, 1893 (21) I. A. 56-64 7
Abdul vs. Provider V, AIR 1954 Mad. 96 11
Ahmed Suleman vs. Bai Fatima (1930) 55 Bom. L.R. 1372 93
Ahmedabad Women’s Action Group vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 573 266
Alka Bakre vs. Bhasker, AIR 1991 Bom 164 177
Allahdiya vs. K ammon Mai, PLD 1957 9 WP Lah. 651 35
Amal Lyngdoh vs. U. Jabin Pakem, AIR 1987 Gau. 69 165
Amir Ahmed vs. Mir Nizam Ali, A.I.R. 1952 Hyd. 120 99
Anand Giri vs. Mst. Baugh, AIR 1955 J&K 1 29
Anees Begum vs. Mohammed Istafa, (1933) 55All 743 44
Anil Bhardwaj vs. Smt. Nimalesh, AIR 1987 Del. 111. 166, 176
Anil Kek vs. Sharada Rige (2008) SCC695 340
Ashok Hurra vs. Rupa B. Zaveri, AIR 1997 SC 1226 171
Ashok Kumar Singh vs. VI Addl. Sessions Judge, AIR 1996 SC 333 167
Ashok Kumar vs. Smt. Santosh Sharma, AIR 1987 Del. 52 167
Ashrafali vs. Mohammedali, (1945) 48 Bom. L.R. 642 28
Atulkumar Natwarlal K adakia vs. Jyoti K adakia, (1998) 9 SCC 279 187
Avinash P. Srivastav vs. Chanra Mohini, AIR 1964 All 486 166
Aziz Banu vs. Ibrahim, AIR 1925 All. 720 29
 (xii)

B
Babu Ram vs. Kamta Devi, AIR 1990 J & K1 176
Bafatun vs. Bilaithkhanum (1903) 30 Cal. 683 (686) 11
Baldevraj vs. Urmila Kumari, AIR, 1979 SC 879 160
Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam vs. Sangeeta K adam, AIR 1997 SC 356 187
Banoo Jal Daruwala, AIR 1964 Bom. 124 184
Banu Kutubuddin Vamanwala vs. Kutubuddin Vamanwala, 1995(2) Mh. L.J. 56 84
Banu vs. K amluddion Suleman, 1955(2) Mah. L.J. 56 80
Befatoon vs. Zuhur Shah, AIR 1952 MB 30 80
Begam Sabana alias Saira Banu vs. H.M. Abdul Gafoor, AIR 1987 SC 1103 87
Begum Noor Banu vs. Dy. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, AIR 1965 SC 1937 27
Behram Khan vs. Akhtar Begum, P.L.D. 1952 (W.P.) Lah. 542 70
Beigan vs. Beigan (1956) 2 All. E.R. 630 161
Bhagwan Datt vs. K amla Devi, 1975 SCC (Cr.) 563 264
Bharti vs. Vassantrao, 1987 Mh. L.J. 873 172
Bijay K. Prasad vs. Ranjana (1999) 9 SCC 544 188,269,271
Bimalchandra Kumar Chatterjee vs. Dipa Chatterjee, (2001) 8 SCC 5 272
Binapanikar Chowdhury vs. Satyabrata Basu (2006) SCC 442 299
Bipin Chandra vs. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176 176
Bipinchandra Jaisingh Bhai Shah vs. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 S.C. 176 161
Bourial vs. K aushaliya AIR 1970 Raj 83 135
Brij Mohanlal Arora vs. Girdharilal Marucha AIR 78 S.C. 1202 327
Buffman Bibi vs. Abdul Salim, AIR 1950 Calcutta 304 53
Bull vs. Bull, (1953) All. E.R. 601 160
C
Chand Narain Gautam vs. Smt. Saroj, AIR 1975 Raj. 88 153
Chaturvedi vs. Gita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316: AIR 20008 SC 530 184
Chilton vs. Chilton, (1952) ALL E.R. 1322 264
Clarence vs. Raichelal, AIR 1964 Mys 67 172
Corbett vs. Corbett (1970) 2 All E.R. 33 216
D
D.P. Joshi vs. the State of Madhya Bharat (1955) I. SCR 1215 302
D.S.Nakara vs Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 23
Dagdu Chotu vs. Rahim Bi Dagdu, 2002 (3) Mh. L.J. 602 59,60,67,95
Damyanti Hemant Matani vs Virren Bhgwandas, (2016) 16 SCC 543 84,96,183
Daniel Latif vs. Union of India, (2001) II D.M.C. 714 84
Darshan Presad vs. Civil Judge, Gorakhpur 1992 AIR S.C. 96 151
Dastane (Dustane) vs. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 165, 168
Dawn Lyngdoh vs. U.K ardring Roy Sad, AIR 1986 Gau. 42 254
Dayawanti vs. Raj Singh, (1982) 1 DMC 129 168
Deepak Bakshi vs. Anita Meriene Faria, AIR 1985 P&H 111 165,262
Deepika vs. Naresh Chandra, AIR 2000 All 148 166
Dhanvanti Joshi vs Madhav Unde, (1998) 1 SCC 112 87,96,183
Dilshad Mosa vs. Mustafa, AIR 1986 JK 80 80
Dr. Abdul Rahim vs. Smt. Padma, AIR 1982 Bom. 341 29,79
Dr. Sunil Sharma vs. Dr. Madhurlata, AIR 2000 MP 26 166
Durgaprasad vs. Debicharan A.I.R. 79 S.C. 145 333
 (xiii)

F
Farida Banu Shahabuddin Kadri vs. S.M. K adri, 1993(1) Mah. L.J. 252 85
G
G. Packia Raj vs. P. Subbammal, AIR 1971 Mad. 319 251
Gaya vs. Bhagwati, AIR. 60 MP 212 154,161
Ghulam Shakina vs. Fakir Sher, AIR 1950 Lah. 45 44
Gin Dar vs. (Mst) Raji, AIR 1961 J&K 31 29
Githa Hariharan vs. Reserve Bank of India, AIR 1999 SC 1149 270
Gobardhandas Jasda Mai Devi, I.L.R. 18 Cal. 252 251
Goods of Hope Brown 1949 W.N. 148 334
Gorkha Chand vs. Praveen Kumar AIR 1952 SC 231 45
Gouhari Begum vs. Najma Begum (1960) I.S.C.R. 597 95
GVN K ameshwara Rao vs. G. Jabilli, AIR 2002 SC 576 262
H
H.R. Radhakrishan vs. Dhanalaxmi AIR 1975 Mad. 333 154,161
H.V. Nirmala & Anr. vs R. Sharmila & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 303 334
Habit Rehman vs. Altaf Ali, AIR 1922 P.C. 159 91
Hafijabi Suleman Darwajkar vs. Suleman Md. Darwajkar, 1996(1) Mah. L.J. 485 85
Haji Mohammed Sayeed vs. Ab. Giffar AIR 1955 All. 668 229
Hari vs. Meena, 2000 (1) Mh. L.J.398 153
Harishankar Singhania vs. Gaur Hari (2006) 4 SCC 658:AIR 2008 SC 2480 187,272
Harmohan vs. Kamla A.I.R. 1979 Ori. 51 135
Harshita Bhasin vs State of WB, (2017) 2 SCC 377 87,97,184
Harvinder Singh vs. Charnjit (Mrs), 2000 (1) Mh. L. J. 429 166
Hazare Barderi vs. Lokesh Dutta (2006) 13 SCC 278 340
Himanshu vs. Tapati, AIR 1995 Cal 110 153
Hori Lal vs. State of U.P., (1971) 1 SSC 8 169
Huber Ahmed vs. Jai Nankeen Prasad, AIR 1960 Pat. 147 49
I
Immabandi vs. Mutsaddi (1918) 45 I.A. 73 97,99
Imperial Bank of India vs. Bibi Sayeedin, AIR 1960 Pat. 132 99
In Re Dr. Govanni Maroo Mussu, 1983 Mh. L.J. 607 188
Independent Though vs Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4904 36
Indira Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755 24
Indubai vs. K autik, 1982 (DMC) 167
Irfan Ahmed vs. Mumtaz [1998(3)] Mah. L.J. 583 94,101,188
Isk Chandra Palkar vs. Nyamotbi, 1980 Mah. L.J. 287 88
Itwari vs. Asgari, AIR 1960, All. 684 29,44,45
J
J.L. Nanda vs. Veena Nanda AIR 1988 SC 407 164,164
Jagan Nath vs. State of U.P., 1974 Cr. L.J. 1239 169
Jagbir Singh vs. Birpal Kaur (2007) 2 SCC 564: AIR 2007 SC 2083 192
Jagdish Singh vs. Madhuvi & Co., (2008) 10 SCC 49 78,166
Jaishree Mohan vs. Mohan Govind, 1987 Mh. L.J. 160 167,168
Jama Darmiam vs. Amir Hussain A.I.R. 1957 Pat. 213 99
Jasmeet K aut vs Navtej Singh, (2018) 4 SCC 295 87,96,183
 (xiv)

Jaswant K aur vs. Amrit Kaur AIR 77 S.C. 74 333

Jauakrishna Panigrahi vs. Surekha, AIR 1996 AP 19 166
Jeban vs. Jitendra AIR 49 P.C. 64 337
Jia Lal Abrol vs. Sarla Devi AIR 1978 J & K 69 165
Jibans vs. Abinash Chandra (1939) 2 Cal. 12 71
Jitendra Arota vs Sukrite Arota, (2017) 3 SCC 726 86,95
Jiwan Khan vs. Habib, (1933) 14 Lahore 518 6
Jogender Singh vs. Pushpa, AIR 1969 P & H 397 172
Jogindra K aur vs. Shivaharan Singh, AIR 1965 J & K 95 152
Jorden Diengdeh vs. S.S. Chopra, 1985 (3) SCC 62 AIR SC 1985 80
Jyothi Pai vs. P.N. Pratapkumar, AIR 1987 K ant. 24 152
K
K. Kumar Raju vs. K.Umamaheshwari, AIR 1995 AP 222 262
K. R. Manjunath vs. Veen, AIR 1999 Kant 64 168
K. Verankutty vs. Pathammakutty AIR 1956 Mad. 514 29
K.J. vs. K. AIR 1952 Ng. 395 172
K.S. Palanisami vs Hindu Community in General & Citizens of Gobichettipalayam,
(2017) 13 SCC 15 336
K.Y.P. Siddique vs. Amina, AIR 1996 Ker. 140 164
Ka. Amal Lyngdoh vs. U. Jobin Pakem, AIR 1987 Gau. 69 262
Kalpana vs. Shripati Rao, 1983 (2) Bom. C. R. 375 167
Kamal Ali Abu Baker vs. Vemgati Marakkar, AIR 1970 Ker. 277 45
K anthy Balvendram vs. S. Harr y, AIR 1954 Mad 316 145
Kapore Chand vs. Sadrunnisa 1950 S.C.R. 747 48
Kedar Pandey vs. Narayan Bikram Shah AIR 1966 SC 160 302
Kedar vs. Suprama A.I.R. 1963 Pat 311 135
Khatkhate Kumal vs. Pakkath, AIR, 1965 K ar. 200 29
Khoo Hooileong vs. Khoo Hean Kwee (1926) A.C. 529 41
Khorshed Behram Rustomjee vs. Behram Nowrojee Rustomjee, 1980 Mah. L.J. 770 88
Khurshid vs. Mehboob Sahib 1966 Mah. L.J. 1047 101,175
Khwaja Md Khan vs. Nawab Hussaini Begam (1910) 37, I.A. 152 43
Kiran vs. Sharad Datt, J.T. 2000 (1) SC 532 187
Kistamma vs. Dr. H.T. Vira Reddy, (1971) 3 SCC 968 188
Kjhwaja Ali vs. Fatimabai, 1987 D.M.C. 374 88
Kulbhusan Kumar vs. Smt. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129 268
Kumar V. Jahagirdar vs. Chethana Ramatheertha, (2004) 2 SCC 688 94
Kusum Lata vs. K ampta, AIR 1965 All 280 166
Kuwar Sain vs. State, AIR 1976 Delhi 11 328
L
Lachman Kriplani vs. Meena Mota, AIR 1964 SC 40 176
Lakshmi Dhar vs. Sachin Dhar, 70 Cal. W.N. 1001 216
Lalit Mohan vs. Khukkun Lal 24 I.A. 76 337
Lily Thomas vs. Union of India (2000) Supp. S.C.R. 464: AIR 2000 SC 1650 45,257
Lokeshwari Shrinivas Rao, AIR 200 AP 451 167
Long vs. Long (1955) A.C. 402 161
Lopaz vs. Lopaz ILR 12 Cal 706 216
 (x v)

M
M. K. Malhotra vs. Kirti, AIR 1987 Del. 226 167
M.P. Gangadharan vs. St. of Kerala
(2008) 6 SCC 162: AIR 2008 SC2360 187,272
Madan Mohan vs. Sarla Kohli, AIR 1967 Pun 397 185
Maharaja Nadar vs. Muthukani Ammal, AIR 1986 Mad 346 167
Maharshi Avadhesh vs. Union of India, (1994) 1 Supp. SCC713 256
Manilal Singh vs. Nirmala, AIR 1999 Del. 156 268
Manjali Bibi vs. Noor Hasan 1991 (2) SCC 731 80
Manjula Bora vs. Dilip Bora, 1979 Mah. L.J. 523 101,188
Manoj Anslem Rebeiro vs Candace Elezabeth, (2017) 11 SCC 493 87,97,184
Mar y Browne vs. A. N. Browne, AIR 1937 Oudh 52 165
Mar y Kurian vs. T.T. Joseph, AIR 1980 Ker. 131 149,251
Matadin vs. Ahmed Ali (1911) 39 I.A. 49 79
Mathew Oommen vs. Suseela (2006) 1 SCC 579: AIR 2006 SC 786 299
Mausami Moitza Ganguli vs. Jayanti Ganguli (2008) 7 SCC. 673: AIR 2008 SC 2262 272
Md. Ismai vs Abdul Rashid AIR 1956 ll 1 (FB) 29
Meenakshi vs. Atul Mehta, AIR 2000 HP 73 167
Meera vs Jacib, AIR 1987 SC 317 268
Mehbubunnissa Begum vs. Mohd Yusuf, AIR 1950 Hyd. 41 90
Michel vs. Bombay State. 56 Bom 729 302
Minakshi Dhar vs. Biresh Ranjan, AIR 1987 Gau. 90 168
Mir Mohammad Bahaddin vs. Mujee-Bu-Nisa Begum, AIR 1952, Madras 280 94
Mir Wahid Ali K adumiya vs. Rashidbeg Kodumiya, AIR 1950 Bom. 22 49
Mirchumal vs. Devi Bai, AIR 1977 Raj. 113 153,161,162
Mirchunal vs. Devi A.I.R. 1977 Raj 114 154
Mohammad Alladad vs. Mohammad Ismail (1999) 10 All 289 90
Mohammad Amin vs. Vakil Ahmed (1952) S.C.R. 1133 99
Mohammad Ejaz vs. Muhammad Iftekar (1932) 59 I.A. 92 99
Mohammed Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Banu, (1985) 2 SCC 556 83
Mohammed Ibrahim vs. Gulam Ahmed, 1 Bom. L.R. 236 97
Mohammed Jamaluddin Haq vs. Zuber Ahmed, AIR 1981 Pat. 345 49
Mohammed Shafi vs. Shamim Banu, AIR 1979 Bom 156 101,188
Mohanalal vs Nandlal, (2018) 5 SCC 459 334
Mohd. Hasnim vs. Aminabai, AIR 1952 Hyd. 3 49
Mohd. Shamsuddin vs Noor jahan Begum, AIR 1955 Hyd. 144 80
Mohinder K aur vs. Bikkarsingh A.I.R. 1930 P & H 248 160
Mohinder vs. Sushila, AIR 1965 SC 384 160
Mohini vs. Virender Kumar (1977) 3 SCC 513 272
Monikiya Devi vs. Pabitra Swaisingh (1990) 2 DMC 302 (Orissa) 221
Moonshee Bazlul Reheem vs. Lateefutunnisa, 1861 (8) Moo. I.A. 379 54
Moonshee Buzloor Rahim vs. Shamsoonnissa Begum, (1867) 11 ML A 551 44
Mr. P. vs. Mrs. P. 1988 Mh. L.J. 419 166,167
Mrs. Iris vs. Dr. Autar Singh Paintal, AIR 1988 Del. 121 168
Mst. Halim vs. Munir, AIR 1971, Pat. 385 49
Mst. Jani vs. Mohin Khan, AIR 1970 J&K 155 45
Mst. Johra Khatun vs. Alnina Bibi (1957) 62 Cal. W. N. 357 100
MT vs. JT (1976) ABJ 1195 218
 (xvi)

Muhammed Ibrahim vs. Gulam Ahmed 1864 H.C.R. 236 11

Musa Ali Khan vs. Nazir Ahmed (P.L.D.) 1952 (W.F.) Peshwar 1 99
N
Nandkumar & Anr vs State of Kerala, AIR 2018 SC 2254 24,25
Narantakath vs. Parakkal (1922) 45 Madras 986 6
Narayan Vendu vs. Punjabrao AIR 1958 Bom. 296 28
Nasiruddin Shah vs. Mst. Amtul Mughni Begum (1874) Lah. 565 48
Navneetlal vs. Golul, AIR 76 S.C. 794 336
Nemi Kumar Bhosh vs. Smt. Mita, AIR 1986 Cal 150 166
Nirmal Changer vs. Saratmoni I.L.R. 25 Cal. 911 329
Nirmal vs. Manohar 1991 Mh. L.J.267 166
Nizamuddin vs. Huseni AIR (196) M.P. 212 36,80
Noor Saba Khatun vs. Mohammed K asim, AIR 1977 SC 380 88
Noreen Judith Sandhurst vs. Raymond Bernard Sandhurst AIR 1982 Karn. 102 254
O
Om Prakash vs. Rajani, AIR 1988 Del. 107 166,167
P
P. Krishnamma vs. A Mahadeva Iyer, (1973) Mh. L.J. 344 268
P.L. Sayal vs. Sarla Rani, AIR 1961 Pun 125 165
P.S. Kher vs. Kamal Nainjit Kaur, 1982 DMC 23 166
Packia Raj vs. P. Subbammal, AIR 1991 Mad. 319 261
Padmaja Sharma vs. Ratan Lal, AIR 2000 SC 1398 188
Palmira vs. Cruz, 1992 Mh. L.J.1048 101,272
Pannalal Bansilal Patil vs. State of AP, AIR 1996 SC 1023 256
Paras Ram vs. K amlesh, 1982 (1) DMC 84 167,168
Parmeshwar vs. Sarnathamol AIR 1969 Mad 124 216
Peti Bewa vs. Laxmidhar, 1985 Cr. L.J. 1124 264
Pragati Varghese vs. Crysil George Verghese, AIR 1994 Bom. 349 253
Pramila vs. Rameshwar, 1995 Supp (4) 614 184
Pramila Khosla vs. Rajnish Kumar Khosla AIR 1979 Del. 78 149,256,261
Pramila vs. Vijay, AIR 2000 Raj 362 167
Praveen Mehta vs. Inderjeet Mehta, AIR 2002 SC 2582 262
Prem vs. Daya Ram, AIR 1965 HP 15 153
Previnben vs. Suresh Bhai AIR 1975 Guj 69 151,153,154,164
Promod Kumar vs. Daisy Bai, AIR 1965 MP 151 172
Punjabrao vs. D.P. Meshram AIR 1965 SC 1179 28
Purvi Mukesh Gada vs Mukesh Popatlal Gada, (2017) 8 SCC 819 86,96,183
Puthalate Chathu vs. Nambukkudi Jayashree, AIR 1990 Ker 306 176
R
R. Balasubramanian vs. Vijayalakshmi
AIR 1999 SC 3070 (1999) 7 SCC 311 167,187
R. Lakshmi vs. K. Saraswathi, (1996) 6 SCC 371 175
R. vs. Clarke, (1949) 2 All. E.R. 440 255
R. vs. Muller, (1954) 2 W.R. 138 255
R.P. Suchdev vs. The State AIR 1986 Del. 178 299
Radhabai vs. Bombay State AIR 1955 Bom. 439 302
Raghunath vs. Deputy Collector of Bombay 32 Bom L.R. 129 337
 (xvii)

Raj Rani vs. Sukh Raj, 1982 (2) DMC 200 168
Raja Bajram vs. Thakurani AIR 53 SC 7 337
Rajam Revankar vs. Shobha Rajan, AIR 1995 Bom. 246 165,166
Ram Devi vs. Hussan Lal, AIR 1988 P & H 165 166
Rama vs. Mohinder, AIR 1996 P & H 98 167
Ramchandra Hiralal vs. Hilda AIR 1964 S.C. 1323 339
Rameshchandra K aushal vs. Veen Kaushal, AIR 1978 SC 1807 264
Ramzan Momin vs. Dashrath Raut, AIR 1953 Cal. 138 28
Rashid Ahmad vs. Anissa Khatun, AIR 1932 P.C. 25 91
Rashid Ahmed vs. Anis Khan, (1931) 591, A.21 76
Ratnaprabhabai vs. Sheshrao 74 Bom. L.R. 434 152
Ravindra Kaur vs. Hitender Singh, J.T. (2000) 1 SC 543 187
Re. Yajna Purush Dasji AIR 1966 SC 1189 297
Rekha vs. Deepak Jagmohan, AIR 1999 Bom. 291 168
Renu Sanjai Singh, AIR 2000 All 201 167
Reynold Rajamani vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1261 256, 262
Richika Abbi vs State, AIR 2016 SC 351 86,96,182
Rishikesh Sharma vs. Saroj (2007) SCC 263 164
Robba Khannum vs. Khodadad Bomanji Irani, (1946) 48 Bom. L.R 864 71
Romila vs. Jaidev, 2000 (3) Mh. L.J. 468 (Full Bench) 187, 272
Rose vs. Rose, (1952) All. E. R. 311 268
Rosy Jacob vs. Chakramukkai, AIR 1973 SC 2090 269,273
S
S. Garg vs. K.M. Marg, AIR 1978 177
S. Hanumantha Rao vs. Smt. Ranandri, (1999) 3 SSC 620: AIR 1999 SC 1318 164,166,161
S. Jaykumar vs. S. Krishnan, AIR 1995 Ker.139 153
S. Rehan Fatima vs. Sayed Badinuddin, AIR 1984 AP 1 101
S.K. Chowdhar y vs. Satirani, AIR 1969 Cal. 573 160
S.R. Batra & Anr. Vs. Taruna Batra, 2007 SCC 169 27
Sabera Begum vs. G.M. Ansari 1971 Bom. C.R. 10 45
Sadhusingh vs. Gurdwara Sahib Narikar (2006) 8 SCC 75: AIR 2006 SC 3282 339
Sahabuddin Imbisi vs. K.P. Ahmed AIR 1997 K ar. 206 & AIR 1961 Pat.87 29
Saidunnisa vs. Rukayabibi, 1913 ILR All. 448 100
Saifuddin Sadab vs. State of Bombay AIR 1962 SC 858 29
Saju vs. Maksud, 45 Cal. W.N. 122 68
Sakina Banu vs. Gulam Mustafa, AIR 1971 Bom. 166 45,80
Samir Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SSC 511 80,163
Samraj Nadgar vs. Ahrahm Nadchi, AIR 1970 Mad. 434 254
Samsunisa vs. Mr. Abdul Munai, 1940 I.L.R. (1) Cal. 97 68
Sanat Kumar Agarwal vs. Nandini (1990) 1 SCC 475 176
Sanjay Kumar Sinha vs Asha Kumari, (2018) 5 SCC 333 86,96,183
Sankarappa vs. Aasumma AIR 1964 Mys. 247 135
Santa Bai Sona Barathe vs. Gautam Vishnu 1994(2) Mah. L.J. 1879 101
Santana vs. Schindra AIR 1990 Cal 367 166
Sarita Sharma vs. Sushil Sharma, AIR 2000 SC 1019: (2000) 3 SCC 14 188
Sarla Mudgal (Smt.) President, Kalyani vs. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 435 71,265,257
Satyaadevi vs. Ajab Singh, AIR 1973 Raj. 20 152
 (xviii)

Satyabala Dasi vs. Sudha Ranee Dasi 1931 Cal. 580 299
Savitri Mulchand vs. Mulchand, AIR 1982 Del 52 167
Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73: AIR 2002 SC 591 44,175,176,278
Secretar y, T.N. Wakf Board vs. Syed Fatima Nachi, AIR 1996 SC 2423 83
Seema vs. Ashwini Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 180 137,221
Seema vs. Ashwini Kumar. (2006) 2 SCC 578: AIR 2006 SC 1158 71,79,137
Shah Banu’s case – AIR 1985 SC 954 88,83
Shahabuddin Imbisis vs. K.P.A Ahmad AIR 1997 Ker. 206 29
Shahzada Qayam vs. Fakhar Jahan, A.I.R. (1953) Hyd. 6 43
Shaik Salma vs. Shaik Mohammed Abdul, AIR 1961 AP. 428 49
Shaikh Fazlur vs. Aisa, (1929) 8 Patna 690 59
Shaikh Mobin vs. State of Mah., 1955(2) Mah. L.J. 810 80
Shail Kumari Devi vs. Krishna Bhywan (2008) 9 SCC 632: AIR 2008 SC 3006 184
Shailja vs Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 86,96,183
Shamim Ara vs. State of U.P. (2002) 7 SCC 518 59,67,75,80,88
Shanti vs. Ramesh, 1971 A.L.J. 63 154,161
Sharely Thomas vs. Johny, AIR 2002 Ker. 280 262
Shayara Bano vs Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 22,55,60,66,67, 68,75
Sheila B. Das vs. P.R. Sugasree (2006) 3 SCC 621: AIR 2006 SC 1343 272
Shobha Rani Madhukar Reddy, 1988 (1) SCC 105: AIR 1988 SC 121 164
Sir Dinshaw Patel V. Jamshetji Bhai (1909) I. I.L.R. 25 134
Siraj Sahabji Mujawar vs. Roshan Siraj, 1992(1) Mah. L.J. 500 85
Sitabai vs. Ramchandra A.I.R. 1958 Bom. 116 135
Skinner vs. Orde, 1871 (14) M.I.A. 309 7,71
Skinner vs. Skinner 1897 (25) I.A. 34 71
Smt. Chanchal Kumari vs. Kewal Krishna, AIR 1977 Cal. 213 144
Smt. Purbi Banerjee vs. Basudeo Mukherjee, AIR 1969 Cal 293 173
Smt. Urmila Devi vs. Deepak Kumar AIR 2000 MP 32 166
Sony Gerry vs Gerru Douglas, (2018) 2 SCC 197 87,96,97,183
State vs. Narayandas Mangilal Dayme AIR 1958 Bom. 68 302
Sudha vs. Rajkumar, 1997 (2) Mh. L.J. 250 101,268
Sugrabi vs. V.D. Mohd. AIR 1988 Ker 30 101
Sujata Uday Patil vs. Uday Madhav Patil (2006) 13 SCC 272 139
Sujeet vs. Raj Kumar, AIR 1967 Pun. 522 159
Sukhendu Das vs Rita Mukherjee, (2017) 9 SCC 632 22,26,165
Sulekha Sinha Mahapatra vs. Nabendu Sengupta, AIR 1989 NOC 205 166
Sunil K. Mirachandani vs. Reena S. Mirachandani, AIR 2000 Bom 66 149
Surbhi vs. Sanja, AIR 2000 MP 139 167
Surender vs. Gurdip A.I.R. 1973 P & H 134 154,161
Suresh Prabhu vs. Ravindra Kumar, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 440: AIR 1995 SC 217 184
Sureshtha Devi vs. Om Prakash, (1991) 2 SCC 25: AIR 1992 SC 1904 171
Swapna Chakravarti vs. Viplay, AIR 1999 MP 64 168
Swarajya Lakshmi vs. Dr. G.G. Padma Rao, (1974) 1 SCC 58 257
Swati Anil Sakpal vs. State, AIR 2007 Bom. 177 29
Swati vs. Revindra, 2000 (2) Mh. L.J. 557 167
Syed Mohammed K abhai vs. Mohammed Munafi AIR 1976 SC 1569 29
Syed Shah Gulam Gaus Mohouddin vs. Syed Shah Ahmed, AIR 1971 SC 2184 101
 (xix)

(Saroj) Rani vs. Sudershan Kumar, (1984) 4 SCC 90 152

Shantibai Sona Barathe vs. Gautam Vishnu, 994(2) Mh. L. J. 1879 101
T
(Thrity) Hoshie Dolikuka vs. Hoshiam, (1982), 2 SCC 544 272
T. Sriniwasan vs. T. Baralakshmi, (1998) 3 SCC 112 153,187
T.N. Taneja vs. Bhajamlal, 1988 SCC Cr. 546 187
Taj Bi vs. Mowla Khan (191) 41 Bom. L.R. 485 39
Talkeshwari Devi vs. Ram Ravi, AIR 1972 SC 639 355
Tapan Kumar Kundu vs. Biva Kundu, AIR 1988 Cal. 223 167
Tirath Kumar vs. Kirpal Singh AIR 1964 Punj 28 161
Trimbak N. Bhagwat vs. Kumudini, 1966 Mh. L.J. 83 165,167, 176
U
Umar Hayath Khan vs. Mahboobunisa 1975 MLJ (Cr.) 570 264
Umri Bai vs. Chittar, AIR 1966 MP 25 165
V
V. Bhagat vs. D Bhagat, (1964) 1 SSC 337 165
Veena James vs. Kewad Krishna James, AIR 1982 Pun. 470 215,217
Vimal Ladhkani vs. Chandra Prakash, AIR 1996 MP 86 166
Vincent Joseph Konath vs. Jacintha Angela Vincent Konath,
AIR 1994 Bom. 20 149,251,261
Vinod Arora vs. Manju, (1982) 1 DMC 352 171
Vinod vs. Mangala, 1981 Bom. C.R. 962 257
Vivek Singh vs Romani Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 573 84,95,98,182
W
Welch vs. Phillips 1 Moo P.C. 299 333
Whethereby vs. Whetherby (1947) of AII. E.R. 563) 154,164
Z
Zahid Ali Imdad Ali vs. Smt. Fahmida Begum
1988(4) Bom. C.R. 3667 85
Zohra Bibi vs. Mohammed Sadak AIR 1951 Mad. 997 99
Zynad Bi vs. Mohammad Ghouse, AIR 1952 Madras 284 94


 BOOK 1

MUSLIM LAW
(COMMENTARY)

1
 1
INTRODUCTION

SYNOPSIS
1. Mohammedian or Mohammedan – Misnomer
2. Application of Muslim Law
3. Principles of Interpretation
4. Who is Muslim?
5. Various Sects of Muslims
A. Origin of Islam
B. Divide of Islamic World — Shia-Sunni
C. Shia-Sunni — Generally
6. Muslims — How Divided?
7. Schools of Thoughts
A. Shia Schools of Thought
(a) Zayadi Sects
(b) Ishna Asharis
(c) Ismailis — Seveners
(i) Khojas
(ii) Bohris
B. Sunni Schools of Thoughts
(a) Hanafi School
(b) Memons
(c) Malaki School
(d) Shafee School
(e) Hambali School
8. What is Law?
A. Generally
(a) Shariat
(b) Shariat Fiqh Distinction
(c) Fiqh

3
4 FAMILY LAW

(i) Generally
(ii) The Classical Theory of Fiqh
(iii) The Modern Theory of Fiqh
B. Source of Law
(a) First Source of Law — Quran
(b) Second Source of Law — Sunna
(c) Third Source of Law
(d) Fourth Source of Law
(e) Other Source of Law
(i) Isti-Hasan
(ii) Isti-Salah
(iii) Ijtehad
(iv) Taqlid
(v) Fatwa
9. Uniform Civil Code
Case Laws

1. MOHAMMEDIAN OR MOHAMMEDAN – MISNOMER

The term ‘Mohammedian’ or ‘Mohammedan’ is understood to have been put to use by
Christians on analogy that followers of Christ are Christians and, therefore, followers of Mohammed
are Mohammedian or Mohammedan. Reality is that Christians follow Christ because Christ is the
God or Son of God. Therefore, no fault can be found in calling the followers of Christ as Christians .
But Mohammed is neither God nor the Son of God because it is clearly said in Quran. 1
1. Huwa Allah-u-Ahad = He is the God, the One (only) and;
2. Lam-u-Lid, Wa Lam-you-Lad = He begets not and not was He begotten.
In view of this Quranic Injunction, it cannot be said that Mohammed is God or Son of God.
Then who Mohammed is the only question to be answered. Answer is that God (Allah) chose
Mohammed as His Rasool or Messenger or Postman to deliver His messages to People. Therefore,
followers of Message of God are not the followers of Messanger 2 (Mohammed). As such, by no
analogical deduction, it can be said that the followers of Messages are the followers of Messenger 3
(Mohammed) to term them as Mohammedian or Mohammedan. So, the use of the terms Mohammedian
or Mohammedan is incorrect and misnomer. The term used for the followers of Messages (of Allah)
is Muslim. The word ‘Muslim’ is derived from the word ‘Islam’, which in its turn, is derived from
the word ‘Salam’ (Safety). In its technical application, the term Islam means submission to the
WILL of God. The term Muslim is a noun of the term Islam and means the one who adopts the
faith of Islam. Thus, the Prophet Muhammad having not propounded any law of his own creation,
it would be very erroneous to say that there is any law laid down by Muhammad to be called as
Mohammedan Law. Hence, the use of the terminology ‘Mohammedan Law’ is a misnomer. The
terminology ‘Mohammedan Law ’, however, is a useful expression so far as India is concerned
because, in India, not the whole of the Islamic law, but only a certain part of it, is applied to
1. Part 30, Verse 112
2. Rasool in Arabic.
3. Rasool in Arabic.
 INTRODUCTION 5

Muslims, Mohammedan Law, in India, can be said to mean: that portion of Islamic Civil Law which
relates to (i) Inheritance/succession, (ii) Wills, (iii) Gifts, (iv) Wakfs (v) Marriage, (vi) Dower,
(vii) Divorce, (viii) Paternity, Guardianship and (ix) Maintenance which is applicable to Muslims in
India. From amongst these, only the Personal Law of Muslims, namely:(a) Marriage, (b) Dower,
(c) Divorce, (d) Paternity, Guardianship and (e) Maintenance is discussed in this Book.

2. APPLICATION OF MUSLIM LAW

Muslim Law was applied to Muslims in British India as a matter of policy, which was the result
of the adoption of a tradition inherited from the Mughal rulers. The earliest trace of acceptance
of this policy is to be found in the Charter of George II, granted in 1753. In Warren Hasting’s plan
for the administration of justice (proposed and adopted in 1772), when the East India Company
took over the management of their territories in India it was provided in that Plan that Maulvis and
Pundits should attend the Courts to expound the law and to assist the Courts in administration of
justice. Later on, by Section 27 of the Regulation of 1780, it was laid down that in all suits of
inheritance, marriage and caste and other religious usages, the laws of the Quran with respect to
Mohammedans and those of the Shastras with respect to Hindus shall be invariably adhered to. By
that provision Maulvis gave out conflicting traditions of Prophet Mohammad. There also came to
be enacted various enactments having limited applications to the respective princely States to
avoid conflicting opinions of Maulvis. These, enactments then came to be made applicable to
Muslims in India. It may expressly be noted here that in India Muslim Law is partly codified and
partly un-codified. To be exact and precise, it may be noted that in India, codified Muslim Law
includes The Kazi/Quazis Act, 1880, The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1937, The Dissolution
of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and
The Wakf Act, 1995. The rest is un-codified Muslim Law although there is no reason or justification
for the same.

3. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATIONS
It was observed 4 that in India there is presumption that o parties are Sunnis to which the great
majority of Muslims belong.
The general position, however, can be summarized as follows:
1. Where both the parties to a suit are Muslims and belong to the same school, the Muslim
Law of that school will apply.
2. Where the parties to a suit differ in religion or do not belong to the same school of
Muslim Law, the Law of the Defendant will apply.
3. Where a person, in good faith, changes his religion, or his school, ordinarily, the personal
law changes with immediate effect from the time of such conversion.
4. Where a person who is convert to a new faith or has changed his school, the law of
succession applicable to the estate will be the law of the region or the school which he
professed at the time of his death.
It must be borne in mind that in India, a Judge cannot decide a case contrar y to the law laid
down by the Honorable Supreme Court of India or the Honorable High Court to which he is
subordinate. It should also be borne in mind that Muslim Law is applicable only when a person
is a Muslim. As such, it is imperative to know as to who is Muslim.

4. Bafatun vs. Bilaithkhanum (1903) 30 Cal 683 (686).

6 FAMILY LAW

4. WHO IS MUSLIM?
The question is: Who is a Muslim? The answer is: Any person who professes the religion of
Islam is a Muslim. The requirements to profess Islam are: (1) Belief in unity of God (Allah) and
(2) the acceptance of prophetic character of Muhammad. To say it in Arabic
LA 5-ILAHA 6 ILL A 7-ALL AH 8 , MUHAMMAD UR RASOOL ALL AH
(There is) no any God except The God and Muhammad is His (God’s) messenger
This is an indispensable minimum belief. A belief in excess of this is redundancy for the
purposes of law. Although, strictly according to Islam, there may be many other requirements for
calling one to be a true Muslim but the Courts have not accepted them as the requirements of
Muslim. Because, the courts are not concerned with the peculiarities in beliefs like offering of
number of prayers, manner and method of offering prayers, believing or not believing the first
three Caliphs etc. Therefore, so long as the minimum belief exists, it must be held that person is
a Muslim. Testing on this measure rod, we find that despite peculiarities in beliefs, certain communities
like Bohras, Khojas, Shiites (Shias) are treated as Muslims. In one landmark case 9 it was contended
that Shias (Shia) who use abusive language against the first three Caliphs, are not true Muslims and
should not be allowed to pray in a Sunni Mosque. It was held: first of all, a mosque belongs neither
to Sunnis nor to Shias. Secondly, as Shias accept the belief in one God and prophetic character of
Muhammad, they come within the pale of Islam and hence they are very much Muslims. In another
landmark case 10 a Moplah husband became an Ahmedia. Moplahs are strict Muslims whereas
Ahmedias are not. Hence, when the husband became Ahmedia, it was taken as if he had renounced
Islam. According to Islam, change in religion would severe marital tie. The woman, under these
circumstances, married another man. Thereupon, it became a matter of public importance to the
Muslim community; some holding that there was no bigamy whereas the Ahmedias always claiming
to be Muslims, asserted that this was a clear case of bigamy. On prosecuting wife for bigamy, the
lower court held that conversion (to the Ahmedia faith being considered by generality of Muslims
as an act of Apotasy) has the effect of severing the martial tie and hence the second marriage by
wife was not bigamy. The High Court then held that conversion to Ahmedism is not an act of
apostasy on the part of a Muslim and therefore the second marriage by the woman was a bigamy
on her part. For our purposes, the paramount question is: Would peculiarities in belief in any sect,
take away that sect from the fold of Islam? The answer provided by the High Court is that it does
not. The ruling of the Court in that case shows that in order to find out whether one is a Muslim
or not, the only test that is to be applied is: Belief in Unity of God and Acceptance of the Prophetic
Character of Muhammad.
It is not necessary that a person should be born Muslim, it is sufficient if he is a Muslim by
profession. Thus we have
Muslims

By birth By conversion

5. La = No.
6. Ela-ha = a God/any God.
7. Illa = Except.
8. Allah = Al (the) + Ilaha = God = the God.
9. Jiwan Khan vs. Habib (1933) 14 Lahore 518.
10 . Narantakath vs. Parakkal (1922) 45 Madras 986.
 INTRODUCTION 7

If a person is born Muslim, presumption is that he is a Muslim until he renounces Islam.

Indeed, mere adoption of some Hindu forms of worship would not tantamount to renunciation of
Islam. Therefore, if a person is Muslim by birth, what is most important is unequivocal renunciation
of Islam. According to strict Islamic law, if one of the parents (either mother (female) or father
(male) is Muslim, the child is treated as Muslim. However, in India, child is presumed to belong
to the religion of his father. Therefore, in India, even if mother is Muslim child is not treated as
Muslim. When a person is not Muslim, he can still be a Muslim by embracing the religion of Islam.
He will be a convert Muslim in contradistinction to Muslim by birth.
When a person accepts a Religion in which he is not born, the process of accepting the
Religion (in which he is not born) is termed as “Conversion” whereas, the process of a person
going out of his own religion is termed as “Apotasy”. As is shown in the Table above, one can be
Muslim by conversion. But surely and certainly, ‘Conversion’ must be bonafide and must not be
malafide or colourable. In other words, change in religion must not be for some other purpose or
for ulterior motive. If change in religion is not for change in “heart” or “belief ” but it is preten ded
one, such a change in religion is not legal, valid but “fraud in Law”. One Helan, Christian woman,
had married, according to Christian rites, to George who was married to a Christian woman. After
death of George, Helan cohabited with John Thomas who was a married man. In order to legalize
their union, John and Helan went through the ceremony of conversion to Islam. The Privy Council
held 11 that such a marriage was of doubtful validity and fraud on law. In another case, it was held 12
that a formal profession of Islam is sufficient unless conversion is pretended. In other words,
conversion must not be colourable and not a fraud in law. The formal conversion must be known
to public at large. Therefore, conversion is always a Question-of-Fact and will have to be decided
on the facts of that particular case.

5. VARIOUS SECTS OF MUSLIMS

A. Origin of Islam
B. Divide of Islamic World — Shia-Sunni
C. Shia-Sunni — Generally
A. Origin of Islam
According to Quran, Islam is a religion, which has existed since the beginning of mankind.
It is, however, corrupted from time to time, as people forget the rue faith. God, in His infinite
mercy, sends to people Rasul (lit. messenger) so that he points out the way and warn people. Such
Rasuls (messengers), earlier to Mohammed, were many including Abraham, Ismail, Moses and
Jesus, the son of Mother Mary. So also was Mohammed, the son of Abdullah, the messenger of
God, came to revive the true faith — submission to the Will of God.
B. Divide of Islamic World Shia-Sunni
The question of leadership came up immediately on demise of the Prophet of Islam, as it was
necessar y to have a leader (Iman-Caliph) or successor of the Prophet to assume leadership
(Imamat-Caliphate) of Muslim Common Wealth. Hashamis, kinsmen of the Prophet always maintained
that the Prophet had indicated Ali (son-in-law and also his kinsman) as his successor and by right
also he could be the spiritual head. Thus, according to them, Ali was the only rightful and legitima te
Iman (leader) of Muslim Common Wealth. Whereas, Koreshies say that the Prophet had not
nominated any one as his successor and hence the leader (Caliph) will have to be appointed by

11 . Skinner vs Orde, 1871 (14) M.I.A. 309.

12 . Abdul Razzak vs Aga Mohammed, 1893 (21) I.A. 56-64.
8 FAMILY LAW

proceeding to election for the leader of Muslim Common Wealth. The faction, which adhered to
Ali, is known as Shia, a term derived from the phrase, Shiat-E-Ali (faction or adherent to Ali).
Whereas the faction, which believed in appointing the leader of Muslim Common Wealth, by
election is called as Sunni, a term derived from the phrases, Ahlus Sunn-at Wal Jamat (people of
tradition and assembly). the unhappy events then divided the Islamic world into two, Shia and
Sunni. Abu Bakar was elected to the office of Caliph by votes of Koreshies to become the First
Caliph of Muslim Common World. Abu Bakar after two years nominated Omar as his successor and
thus Omar became the Second Caliph. Omar reigned successfully for more than 10 years and died
of a wound he received from a Persian slave. After Omar, Usman became the bird Caliph and finally,
after about 24 years, Ali became the Fourth Caliph. However, Shias do not give recognition to first
three caliphs and always maintain that Ali is the only legitimate leader after the demise of the
Prophet of Islam. In any case, it is worth noting that Sunnis too accept Ali as their Caliph and it
is not that they do not pay reverence to Ali. Be it as it is, the fact remains that today the Islami c
world is divided into two, Shia and Sunni.
C. Shia and Sunni Generally
Before entering into the thicket of Shia-Sunni, it may clearly be noted that Shia use the term
‘Iman’ whereas Sunni use the term Kalipha (Caliph) for the English Word Leader – Khilaf = Imamt
= Leadership. What is necessar y for the present is to notice that the term “Iman” has to be
understood in broader percept to denote the phenomenon when it had become necessar y to have
a successor or the leader, a ‘Temporal Ruler ’ or a ‘Religious Chief or a Leader by Divine Right.’ Th e
divergence in constructing the term “Iman” has divided Muslims into two, Shia and Sunni. Shia
(Adherents of Ali) take the meaning of the term “Iman” as ‘leader by divine right’ and take Imamat
(leadership) as hereditary. Therefore, according to Shias, since Ali is from the ‘House of Mohammed’,
he alone has the divine right to be their “Imam” and so his successors too are the “Imams.” Shia
are thus the adherents of Ali and, therefore, they are identified as “Shiat-e Ali” — Turning to Sunni,
it may be stated that Sunnis (Ahuls Sunnat wal Jamat — People of Assembly) take the meaning
of the term “Imam” as ‘the temporal leader’ and hence they believe that whenever it is so
necessar y, they can elect or select, their “Imam” from amongst them. Shias and Sunnis, as such,
are so sharply divided that it is essential that we notice the differences in them.
 The followers of Ali or the Shiat-e-Ali (Faction of Ali) then came to be called as Shias.
Shias accept only those traditions which come through Ali, Sunnis accept in entirety, the
traditions and perceptions of Prophet, which supplement the Quranic injunctions and
treat them almost equal in authority in them.
 Imam is the leader by divine right because he is the successor of the Prophet or rather
the descendant of Ali. Therefore, he is the final interpreter of Law on the earth. In
appropriate cases, Iman can even legislate, Imam is more of a temporal ruler than a
religious chief is. As such, in religious matters, he has to simply follow the path of
Shariat.
 Shias repudiate entirely the authority of “Jamat” or the universality of people. As such,
the Jamat cannot elect the spiritual Chief. If he is found unfit, he may be deprived of
his Imamat.
 According to Shias, the oral precepts of the Prophet are supplementary to the Quranic
injunctions and their binding effect depends upon the degree of harmony between the
Quranic ordinances and oral precepts of the Prophet. After Turkish Revolution in 1924,
the system of Caliphate is abolished.
 Shias reject not only the decisions but also the traditions, which do not come through
Ali or the immediate successors of Ali who had seen the Prophet. Accept the authority
of the Quran.
 INTRODUCTION 9

 Imam is the descendant of Ali. According to Zaydis, a human being. According to

Khojas, he is Hazir Imam. After 4th centur y of Hijara, there is no Mujtahid and hence
the doctrine of Ijtehad is strictly constrained. Taqlid has come to be accepted by not
the Qiyas and Ijmas, Taqlid (Law of Precedent), Qiyas (Law of Analogical deductions)
and Ijma (agreement of juris-consults) are widely accepted.
 Accept the authority of the Quran.

6. MUSLIMS — HOW DIVIDED?

MUSLIM

Sunni Shia

Hanans Shafis Malaki Hambli Zayadis Ishna Ismailis Others

Ashari Seveners

Memons Others Western Eastern

Bohras Khojas Aga Khanis

Katchhis Halai Dawoodi Bohras Suleimani Bohras

7. SCHOOLS OF THOUGHTS (SCHOOLS OF LAW)

A. Shia Schools of Thought
(a) Zayadi Sects
(b) Ishna Asharis
(c) Ismailis – Seveners
(i) Khojas
(ii) Bohris
B. Sunni Schools of Thoughts
(a) Hanafi School
(b) Memons
(c) Malaki School
(d) Shafee School
(e) Hambali School
A. Shia Schools of Thoughts
(a) Zayad Sect: After Ali also, amongst, Shia, there arose the difference of opinion in respect
of Imam. One of the sects that emerged out powerful was the follower of Zayd, called as Zaydis.
According to Zaydis, Imam is a mere human being. Zaydis are found mostly in Yemen and North
Persia.
10 FAMILY LAW

(b) Ishna Ashari Sect: Strangely in India, the term Shia is applied to Ishna (also spelt as Ithna)
Ashari School of Shia and hardly to any other Ishna Asharis are the followers of the 12th Imam. Their
Imam partakes the Divine Essence. He is Ghayab (vanished) and Muntazar (awaited). He id
deathless and will appear at the pre-ordained time. Most of the Shias belong to Ishna Ashari School
and generally they are in Persia and princely states of India like Lucknow, Murshidabad, Deccan
etc.
(c) Ismailis-Seveners: Imam Ismail was the Seventh and hence his followers, in India, are
also called as the Seveners. Ismailis consist of two main groups, Eastern Ismailis, Khojas and
Western Ismailis, Bohras who are further sub-divided as Dawoodi and Sulemani.
(i) Khojas: The word Khoja (Khuwaja) means the honourable person. The Khojas were
originally Hindus of the trading class from Sind and Kutch-Sindh. The Sindh and Kutch was conquered
early by the Muslims and the trading communities were converted to Islam. The conversion on
large scale was mainly due to the efforts and personality of Pir Sadruddin who lived in Kutch,
Kathiawar. According to majority belief. Pir Sadruddin was a missionar y sent by Shah Islam, one
of the ancestors of His Highness, the Aga Khan who is the head of the community in all religious
matters and is called the Hazar Imam. Hazar (present-living) Imam is the descendant of the Prophet
and is therefore entitled to absolute reverence; he is the final interpreter of the religion.
The original faith of Khojas was a hybrid between Hinduism and Islam. Gradually, the community
has come more and more under the influence of Islam; even the original Ismailis have been
attracted by the simpler form of the faith and some of them have formed themselves into two
groups. The larger of these professes the Shiite Ishna Ashari faith, the smaller has adopted the
Hanafi school. Therefore, the Khojas now consist of three groups: (i) followers of Aga Khan
(ii) Shiite Ishna Ashari faith and (iii) the Hanafi School of Sunnite law.
The legal position of Khojas may be summed up as follows:
Prior to 1937: They were governed by the Hindu Law of inheritance and succession which
they had retained by custom. They were, however, not governed by the Hindu Law of joint family
or partition and in all other respects governed by Muslim Law.
After the Shariat Act, 1937: As to the intestate succession, they are governed by Muslim law
but as to testamentary succession, they retained their customar y law and hence they can will away
the whole of their property. However, making or revocation of Khoja WILL be on the principles
of Muslim Law because even though they can WILL away the whole property, as per the customar y
law, they are governed by Muslim Law. As such, Khoja will be construed in accordance with the
principles of Muslim Law.
(ii) Bohris: The word Bohra means a ‘merchant’. They are trading community doing business
in all parts of the world but they are mostly established in Western India. They are divided into
Daudis, Sulaimanis and in some other smaller branches. But as a group, they are called Western
Ismailis to distinguish them from the Eastern Ismailis, the Khojas. They got separated from the
other groups during the Fatimid regime.
The present religious head Mullaji Saheb of the Daudi Bohras is called as Dai-E-Mutalaq. The
Dai is an assistant of Imam, the final religious head; but as the Imam is Mastur (hidden from sight)
the Dai has large powers of interpreting religion. A peculiar belief of the community is that the
Imam must always exist and he must e assisted by the assistant. As the Imam is in seclusion, the
Dai is entitled to the equal reverence or oath of allegiance. The Sulaimanis have their own religious
heads but, in essentials, their beliefs are almost identical. However, they are Sunnite by persuasion
whereas, the Daudi Bohars are more skin to Malki rather than Shiite Ithan Ashari School.
 INTRODUCTION 11

B. Sunni Schools of Thoughts

(a) Hanafi School: The Hanafi School is named after its founder Imam (Caliph) Abu Hanifa
(699-767 A.D. = 80-150 A.H.) It is oldest and supposedly the most liberal of the four schools. The
special characteristic of this school is reliance on the principles of Qiyas - Analogical deductions .
Abu Hanifa employed Qiyas more because the science of Hadis had not developed fully by that
time and no recognized collections were available. In essence, his system does not differ from the
others. It would be interesting to know that Imam Abu Hanifa had a pupil, a founder of Shia School
Imam Jafar-as-Sadiq but as he was also a pupil of Abu Abdulla and Hamid bin Suleman. Abu Hanifa
left very few written books but he was fortunate to have his two celebrated pupils. Abu Yusuf,
Chief Kazi/Quazi of Baghdad under Khalifa Haroon-al-Rasheed and Mohammed Shybani who left
written work dealing with Abu Hanifa’s unwritten work. Two ver y authoritative texts of this school,
are the Fatwa-E-Alamgiri (because Emperor Aurangzeb was an orthodox Hanafi Sunni Muslim) and
the Hidaya originally written by Burhanuddin of Marghinani, a small town place in Russian Turkistan
to the east of Bukhara. It was translated by Hamilton. These two books were translated early in
the last centur y and were well known in the British Courts. The Hanafi School is also known as
Kufa School. In fact, the vast majority of Muslims of the world taken in aggregate belong to Hanafi
School. It is the dominant school in India, Pakistan, Asia Minor, Palestine and Cyprus. In Egypt, while
the majority are Shafis, the State Code is Hanafi. In India, the Hanafi school was introduced by the
Mughal Emperors who were Central Asian Turks who are mostly Hanafis. The Court observed 13 that
in India presumption is that the parties are Sunni Hanafi. A Hanafi may freely become Shafi and
vice versa. So also Hanafi Kazi/Quazi may adopt, under certain circumstances, a rule of Shafi. It was
laid down 14 that a Hanafi woman on attaining majority can select a husband without reference to
her father. but a Shafi woman cannot. But she can convert herself to Hanafi and can do so.
(b) Memons: The Memon is perhaps a corruption of a term Maumin means a believer. The
Memons are divided into two groups — Kutchhi Memons and Halai Memons. The Memons like the
Khojas are coverts from Hindu trading community, the Lohanas from K athiawar Kutchh. The
Kutchhi Memons had until 1938 retained their own customary law which was identical with Hindu
Law. After the Kutchhi Memons Act, 1938, they are governed entirely by the Hanafi Law. The
Kutchhi Memons Act, 1938 was replaced by the Kutchhi Memons Act, 1942 however, legal position
remains that they are governed entirely by Hanafi Law in all matters. Similarly, Halai Memons too
are governed by the Hanafi Law. It was held 15 that Kutchi Memons are governed by Muslim Law
in all matters of succession.
(c) Malaki School: The Malaki School is named after is founder Malik Ibne Anas [713-795
A.D.-90-179 A.H.] Malik Ibne Anas was inhabitant of Madina and so the school founded by him is
known as Madina School (whereas Hanafi School is known as Kufa School). Malik gave a ruling that
an oath of allegiance given under duress (to the Abbasids of Madina) has no binding force.
Therefore, Abbasids of Madina looked upon him with wrath. But later on, he was forgiven.
Although he was taught by a teacher who emphasised independent exercise of reason in interpretation,
Malik leaned towards jurisprudence based on Koran and Hadis. He followed the Hadis of Prophet
and when traditions conflicted, Malik depended on Ijma of Medinese Mujtehids (Muslim scholars
from Madina) for the solution Therefore, the learned modern critic Schachit has observed that
Malik’s tendency to consistent systematic reasoning is secondary to his dependence of prevalent
usage by tradition. His reasoning is inspired by practical expediency and the tendency to Islamize.
The teaching of Malik spread from Madina to Morocco, Upper Egypt, Central and Western Africa,
Algeria and Spain. We, in India, have no Malikis.

13 . Bafatun vs. Bilaiiti Khanum, I.L.R. (1903) 330 Cal. 683.

14 . Mohammed Ibrahim vs. Gulam Ahmed, 1 Bom. L.R. 236.
15 . Abdul vs. Provider V, AIR 1954 Mad 96.
12 FAMILY LAW

(d) Shafee School: The Shafee School is named after its founder Mohammad Ibne Idris As-
Shafi (760-820 A.D. — 150-204 A.H.). He lived, a part of his life, at Baghdad and the rest in Cairo.
He was a pupil of Imam Malik and also of Abu Hanifa. Modern critics place Imam Shafi very high
above Malik and also Abu Hanifa. Modern critics place Imam Shafi ver y high as a Jurist. He is one
of the greatest jurists of Islam and the creator of Classical Theory of Islamic Jurisprudence. He wa s
foremost in methodology of law and jurisprudence. He was foremost in methodology of law and
jurisprudence. He was responsible for the doctrine of Qiyas. He established Ijma as a source of law.
The doctrine of Shafi schools spread to Egypt, hejas, South Arabia, East Africa and India. Konkanis
of Mumbai/Maharashtra and Moplahs of Malbar are Shafis.
(e) Hambali School: The Hambali school is named after its founder Ahmed Ibne-e-Hambal
(780-855 A.D. = 164-241 A.H.) from Baghdad. He was a pupil of Imam Shafi but was an orthodox
traditionalist. He was such a puritan that he rejected everything which was opposed to Traditions
(Sunnas of Prophet Muhammad). Imam Ibne-e-Hambal, one day, wanted to eat watermelon. But
before eating, he reverted to Quran and Hadis and he found no guidelines for eating watermelon
and therefore, he did not eat it. Hambal being the traditionalist did not accept doctrine of Ijtehad .
He perfected the doctrine of Usool and collected 80,000 of Ahadis (plural of Hadis). The Wahabis
are Humbalis localised mostly in the centre of Arabia and are nowhere else to be found. In India,
there is a sect known as Ghair Muqqallad who do not follow any school and who are akin to
Wahabis; compelling the Muslim communities to give up their customar y rights which are contrar y
to Islamic Law, to merge into the general Islamic community and to be governed exclusively by
the laws of Shariat.

8. WHAT IS LAW?
A. Generally
(a) Shariat
(b) Shariat-Fiqh Distinction
(c) Fiqh
(i) Generally
(ii) The Classical Theor y of Fiqh
(iii) The Modern Theor y of Fiqh
B. Source of Law
(i) First Source of Law — Quran
(ii) Second Source of Law — Sunna
(iii) Third Source of Law
(iv) Fourth Source of Law
(v) Other Sources of Law
(a) Isti-Hasan
(b) Isti-Salah
(c) Ijtehad
(d) Taqlid
(e) Fatwa
 INTRODUCTION 13

A. Generally
Before we proceed to learn the Islamic notion of law let us first understand, in general, the
meaning of the term “Law ”. We may be compelled to act in accordance with certain principles
because (i) God or (ii) the king or (iii) the Assembly (of wise men) or (iv) the Leaders of the
Community or (v) Social Customs desire us to do so, for the good of the people in general. Dharma,
as defined by Hindu Lawyers, implies a course of conduct which is approved by God. Then, what
is the Islamic notion of Law?
(a) Shariat: There is a doctrine or theor y in Islam known as “Ilmul Yaqin’ (certitude).
According to this theory, what is good (Husna-beautiful) must be done and what is evil (Qubh-
Ugly) must not be done; and that is law. What is good (Husna) and what is bad (Qubh) has to be
answered with reference to Quran and Sunna. Thus, Quran and Sunna are the principle roots of
Islamic Law. If there is nothing either in Quran or in Sunna to answer a particular question which
is to be answered, we have to follow the dictates of our reasoning in accordance with certain
definite principles. These principles constitute the basis of Canon Law or Shariat as Muslim Doctors
understand it.
It must always be borne in mind that the ‘Islamic Law ’ is not the result of legislative activity
but a science developed by juristic thought. Further while Shariat means the Islamic Law, the
Shariat Act means the enactment passed in 1937 whereby the Law of Islam (i.e., Shariat) is restored
to Muslim residing in India.
The word Shariat literally means the road to watering place, the path to be followed. As
technical term it means the Canon Law of Islam or the Doctrine od Duties or the Totality of Allah’s
Commandments. Each one of such commandment is called ‘Hukm’ (Pl, Ahkam). Shariat, the
totality of Allah’s commandments and it embraces I it all human actions and for this reason Shariat
is not the Law in the modern sense. The Law, in the modern sense of the term, under the Islamic
Law is known as Fiqh.
(b) Shariat — Fiqh Distinction: The distinction between Shariat and Fiqh is undoubtedly
narrow and very often Muslim Doctors themselves have used the terms synonymously. However,
it can be safely said that the Shariat is a wider circle and embraces in its compass all human actions.
Fiqh is the narrower one and deals with legal acts. Shariaat reminds us of ‘ilm’ (i.e., one may be
‘alim’) but unless he possesses independent judgement, i.e., capacity to decide correct and binding
rule of law, one cannot be a Fakih (jurist or a person skilled in law). Therefore, Fiqh means
knowledge (ilm) plus independent judgement. Fiqh is the term used for the Law as a Science.
Whereas term Shariat is used for the Law as divinely ordained path. The path of Shariat is laid down
by God and his Prophet, the edifice of Fiqh is erected by human endeavour. In the Fiqh, an action
is either, legal or illegal – permissible or impermissible. In the Shariat, there are various grades of
approval or disapproval. According to Shariat religious injunctions are of five kinds.
1. Farz — Strictly enjoined like 5 times prayers.
2. Haram — Strictly prohibited like taking wine.
3. Mandub/Wajib — Advised to do prayer on Ed.
4. Makruh — Advised not to do, not eating certain type of fish.
5. Jayaz — Law is indifferent, like traveling by Air.
From the above, it is now easier to comprehend the distinction between the Shariat and Fiqh.
It is as under:
14 FAMILY LAW

Shariat Fiqh

1. Wider circle covering all human 1. Narrower circle and deals with legal acts.
actions legal, moral etc.
2. Reminds us of revelations through 2. The ilm is the basis of approval of any
Quran and Hadis. legal act
3. It is of divinely origin. 3. It is manmade.
4. Totality of Allah’s Commandments 4. Deals with only those Commandments which
deal with legality of the human acts
5. Law as divinely ordained path 5. Law as a science,

(c) Fiqh
(i) Generally: Literally it means ‘intelligence’. It is a name given to the whole Science of
Jurisprudence or it is the science of Islamic Law of one’s rights and obligations derived from the
Quran, Sunna, Ijma, Qiyas. It must also be pointed out that the Fiqh has been divided into two viz.
Usul and Furu. The Usul literally means roots of law and the Furu means branches of law. The Usul
deal with principles of law and may be linked to our modern Jurisprudence. While the Furu deals
with the law as it is actually applicable in the Courts of Law.
FIQH

Furu (branches) Usul (root)

Deals with particular injunctions and may Deals with interpretation and may be
be called as Sustantative Law — called as Jurisprudence or legal theor y
law as applied in the Courts of Law.
There are two theories — Classical and the Modern. The Classical theor y of Fiqh gives prime
importance to the religious and ethical teachings of Quran and the Prophet. Whereas the Modern
Theory of Fiqu goes to the ver y root of the law and pays little regard to the ethical and spiritual
norms. Thus the modern theor y of Fiqh has the scientific value. A careful study of both the
theories, for a modern critical student of law, is, therefore, very essential.
(ii) The Classical Theor y of Fiqh: Abu Hanifi’s definition of Fiqh stresses the moral aspect
while most of Islamic authorities define in terms of its basic constituents. According to classical
theory, Fiqh is the knowledge of one’s Rights and Obligations derived from (1) Quran, (2) Sunna
of the Prophet or (3) the consensus of opinion among the learned (i.e., Ijma) or (4) analogical
deductions (i.e., Qiyas). The classical view is founded on the oft-quoted tradition of Muaz (Muadth).
The Prophet sent Muaz, one of his companions, as Governor of a Province — Yeman and also
appointed him as the Chief Justice, the distributor of Justice in Yemen.
Prophet is reported to have asked him:
According to what shall thou judge?
He is reported to have replied:
According to the scriptures of God.
And if thou findest nought therein?
According to the Traditions of the Messenger of God.
And if thou fondest naught therein?
Then I shall interpret with my reason.
 INTRODUCTION 15

And thereupon the Prophet is reported to have said: Praise be to God who has favoured the
Messenger. His Messenger is willing to approve the appointment. This is an important tradition
(Hadith) which emphasizes the principle that the exercise of independent judgement, within
certain limits, is not only permissible but praiseworthy. A noteworthy feature of this Hadis is that
the Quran is given pre-eminence and next come the practice of the Prophet. Although consensus
is not mentioned specifically, it prepares the way for it. And if all these sources (Quran, Sunna an d
Consensus) fail then the opinion of distinguished persons (Qiyas) may also have the force of Law.
(iii) The Modern Theor y of Fiqh: In the last century, Ignaz Goldzihar began the scientific
criticism of the Hadis Literature and he may be said to be the originator of the Modern Theor y
of Fiqh.
According to him, the Prophet of Islam did not create a new system of law; he took the
existing Sunna (prevalent usages) and modified it in two ways. First by direct revelations, that is
the ordinances of the Quran and second by his own teachings and traditions (Hadith/Hadis).
Modern research tends to show that a major portion of the traditions (Hadis) attributed to Prophet
is apocryphal. Goldzihar has shown that the great majority of traditions even in the classical
collections do not belong to time to which they claim to belong. Therefore, according to Goldzihar,
Hadis may thus be one of the two things (1) a form advocated by the Prophet in opposition to
the prevalent usages or (2) practice put forward by certain jurists to support their own theoretical
views. Thus, it can be said that the spirit to law, in Islam, is religious and ethical but the conte nts
are based upon pre-Islamic customs and usages. The matter is non-Islamic but the spirit is Islamic.

Classical Theor y of Fiqh Modern Theor y of Fiqh

1. Classical theor y is founded on
tradition of Muaz.
2. Gives more competence to
Quran, Hadis and moral aspects.
3. Knowledge of one’s right and
obligation derived from Quran
and Sunna
1. Modern theor y was propounded by
Jgnaz Goldzihar
2. Pays little regard to ethical and Spiritual
norms.
3. Has the scientific value and contents is of
Law are based on pre-Islamic customs
and usages.

Having thus considered the Modern theory and the Classical theor y of Fiqh, we now turn to
the different sources of law, viz. Quran, Sunna, Ijma, Qiyas, etc.
B. Sources of Law
(i) First Source of Law: Quran
According to classical theory, the Quran is the first source of law. Its importance is religious
an spiritual, no less than the law, A verse (Ayat) of the Quran is always held of paramount authorit y.
The Quran although resembles a code, in that it derives all its authority from itself, yet it does not
in any portion of it, profess to be a code complete in itself. The Quran was revealed to Prophet
through Gabriel in fragments, during the period of 22 years (609 A.D. to 632 A.D. after Christ). Eit her
God would send message or Prophet would put his queries and would in turn get a reply in the
form of message. All these messages (Verses — Ayats) were memorised by the Prophet (he was
illiterate and did not know reading and writing) and then by his followers. His followers also had
put down the memorised verses (messages) on Date-tree or palm tree leaves, white stones and
even on their breasts. Abu Baker who succeeded Prophet sought for the Quran and collected it
for the first time. The compilation work was finally completed by Usman, the Third Caliph and he
put them in book form, the Quran. All the transcripts now existing are from Usman’s edition and
16 FAMILY LAW

since then there has been no alteration. Probably no other work in the world has remained for
centuries so pure a text. There are 6000 verses (Ayats) set out in the Quran in order of revelations .
200 of them deal with law and only 80 of them deal with personal law. It is alleged by Shias that
Usman has suppressed the revelations about Ali.
(ii) Second source of Law: Sunna (Traditions of Prophet)
According to classical theor y of Fiqh, the second source of law is sunna or the traditions of
practice of the Prophet. The principles laid down in Quran found their way in the hands of the
Prophet. The Prophet lived strictly in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran and his was the
Model Behaviour. Practices, precedents and traditions of Prophet Muhammad are known as Sunna.
The terms Sunna and Hadis must be distinguished and understood. Hadis is the narration of a
particular occurrence in the life of the Prophet of Islam whose was Model Behaviour. The rule of
law deduced from the Hadis is called as Sunna. the word Sunna in Pre-Islamic time, was used for
an ancient and continuous usage, well established in the community. Later, after the advent of
Islam, the term was, however, used to mean the practice, precedents and traditions of Prophet
Muhammad. Sunnas are classified in three groups (1) Sunnatul-fil, what the Prophet did (2) Sunnatul-
taqrif - the Action - conduct done in presence of Prophet with his approval or rather without his
disapproval and (3) Sunnatul-qual — the Prophet enjoined expressly by words. Ahdis (plural of
Hadis) are not written down or noted anywhere. There are many collections of Hadis. The
authoritative collections are those of Tirmidhi, Bukhari, Muslim, Samin and Sasai. Although modern
research tend to show that a large number of traditions (Hadis) ascribed to the prophet are of late
origin and therefore not free from doubt, nevertheless, their importance, in law, is never minimized.
It may also be well remembered that Shias give no credence to a Hadis which does not come from
the House of Ali.
(iii) Third Source of Law: Ijma (Agreement and Juris-Consults)
According to the classical theor y of Fiqh, the third source of law is Ijma. Failing the Quran
and direct precedents or practice of the Prophet himself, the best guide to the law was the
consensus of his companions. Muslim Doctors (Faqihs) define Ijma as agreement of jurists amongst
the followers of Muhammad in a particular age on a question of law. In Ijma, opinions of Juris-
consult coincide. Although the Muslim legists (Doctors) give it the third place, the modern critics
consider it to be the most important. A tradition summarises the principle: ‘My community will
never agree upon error.’ Rules deduced on the basis of Ijma have varying degree of sanctity in
different schools. But all schools agree that where there is a valid agreement amongst juris-consults
(Fakih), no divergence can be allowed. In other words, once Ijma (Agreement of Juris-consults)
is established it cannot be repealed. The Ijma of companions of prophet rank first. The next in
order are the Ijma wherein jurists agreed and others did not dissent. The agreement of Juris-
Consults on a new point come third in order and last ill them come the Ijma on which earlier there
was disagreement amongst juris-consults. Hanafis regard as a fundamental source whereas Shafis
give second place. Malakis place Ijma of scholars of Madina above others.
(iv) Fourth Source of Law: Qiyas (Analogical Deductions)
The Fourth Source of law, according to the classical theory of Fiqh, is Qiyas. Qiyas means
analogical deductions. Qiyas does not lay down a new principle but it is a kind of permissible
exigency. Qiyas is a weak kind of Ijtehad. The term ‘rai’ and ‘qiyas’ are often misconstrued,
individual reasoning ill general is called ‘rai’ opinion. Y\’11en rai (opinion) is directed towards
achieving systematic consistency or decision it is called Qiyas. Hambalis oppose the Quiyas so also
Shias (because, according to them, only Imams can change he law). Shafis also regard Ijtehad and
Quiyas as contradictor y of their views.
 INTRODUCTION 17

(v) Other Sources of Law

In addition to the above main Sources of Law, we find that the law is occasionally supplemented
by other principles also. The following can be summarized.
(a) Isti Hasan — Jurisic preference — Equity
(b) Isti Salah — Public interest
(c) Ijtehad — Exercising one’s own reasoning to deduce rule of law (Shariat)
(d) Taqlid — Law of Precedents
(e) Fatwas — Decisions of Muslim Judges.
(a) Isti Hasan — Jurisic preference — Equity
Imam Abu Hanifa adopted the principle of Isti Hasan for the relief from absolute dependence
on analogical reasoning. Isti Hasan literally means liberal construction or juristic preference or what
we call today as law of equity. This term was used to express liberty of laying down such rule as
may be necessary and the special circumstances may require. The objection taken against it is that
it left an almost uncontrolled discretion in the exposition of the law.
(b) Isti Salah— Public interest
Imam Malik who will be presently mentioned as the founder of a school of Sunni law, also
felt the necessity of surer test for the development of law on right lines than the use of analogy.
He approved the introduction of Isti Salah (public interest) in preference to Isti Hasan. He laid
down that ordinarily, analogy was used to expand law but if it appears that a rule indicated by
analogy is opposed to general utility then Isti Salah (principles of public interest) should be resorted
to. Under this system, rule of law pointed out by analogy could not be set aside either: ( i) on the
opinion of the individual expert of the law of (ii) with reference merely to the circumstances of
particular case: it could be disregarded only if it would be harmful to the public in general.
(c) Ijtehad — Exercising one’s own reasoning to deduce rule of law (Shariat)
When Quran and Hadis did not disclose the precise line to follow, Ijtehad came to be born.
Ijtehad means independent judgement or considered opinions of individuals or exercising one’s
own reasoning to deduce a rule of Shariat. As a method of reasoning in law, Ijtehad of prophet
tersely has gained almost equal footing with the first four founders of the law. In deducing Ijtehad ,
Quran and Hadis cannot be over looked but exigency of time and public interest were also to be
borne in mind. Where a legal principle is silent, Ijtehad can be used with advantage. But Ijtehad
was the privilege of great scholars or Mujtahids. The authority of the Mujtahids (great scholars)
based not on his holding any office in the State but is derived purely from the learning and
reputation of the individuals. The qualifications of the Mujtahids consists of a complete knowledge
of Quran i.e., he should know the sacred text by heart and should be able to say when and where
each verse was revealed and he should also have a perfect knowledge of all the traditions (Sunna-
Hadis) and all the branches of the science of law. He should, besides, be a man of austere piety.
In short, the qualifications required are such that so far as the Sunni Law is concerned, after the
death of Ibne Hanbal (856 after Christ) there have been no recognised Mujtahids. With the end
of Mujtahids, the doors of Ijtehad no longer remained open. This is known as the closure of the
golden gate of Ijtehad — Bad Al Injtehad.
(d) Taqlid — Law of Precedents
After Ijtehad or rather on the closure of the Gates of Ijtehad, a parallel doctrine of Taqlid (Law
of precedents) came to be in existence. Under Taqlid (literally, imitation) means following opinions
of another person without knowledge o the Authority or the authority for such opinion. a Muslim
had to follow the Law; every Muslim in the street could not be learned in the rules of Shariat, being
18 FAMILY LAW

ignorant, he was asked to follow the opinions of those who knew better. Those who knew better
(Ulemas) were denied independence of judgement in any vital matter. Hence, the vicious circle
of Taqlid (imitation - Law of Precedents).
(e) Fatwas — Decisions of Muslim Judges
As already aforesaid, the Law sent down by Allah by direct revelations is recorded in Quran
and what is sent down by him is recorded in Sunna/Sunnat of Prophet of Islam. Even the King has
no authority to make law and therefore, the Muslim Kings called upon the Muslim scholars to guide
them in the matter of Law. The opinions tendered by Muslim Jurists to King were accepted by King
of enforce the Law in the territory of his kingdom. Therefore, the opinions of Muslim Jurists were
always held in high regard. With the advent of time, even the ordinary Muslims would turn to such
jurist and ask for his opinion. Such opinion of Muslim Jurist is referred to as Fatwas. In India, du ring
the Seventeenth Centur y A.D. when Mughal Emperor Aurangazeb came in power, he appointed
Shaykh Nizam Burhanpuri and four others to prepare a compilations of Fatwas. Accordingly, they
sent questionnaire various juris-consults and Muftis. Their Replies are the collection of Fatwas,
popularly known as Fatwa-e-Alamigir. However, Fatwas are not source of law.

9. UNIFORM CIVIL CODE

1. Introduction
At the outset, the two terms, “Civil” and “Code” appearing in “Uniform Civil Code” need to
be comprehended. The term “Civil” relates to “Civil Law” in contradistinction to Criminal Law –
because Criminal Law, all over India, is same, similar and uniform for all Citizens of all religions.
The ‘Civil Law’ expression is of wider import and includes all Civil Laws of all specialization, like
Labour Laws, Taxation Laws, Land Laws, Criminal Laws, Family Laws, etc. Therefore, for narrowing
down the wider import of ‘Civil Law, the word “Law” is replaced by word ‘Code’ – to say – ‘Civil
Code’ instead of ‘Civil Law ’. But use of ‘Code’ gives wrong impression that it is the ‘Procedure’ of
Civil Law because, generally, ‘Code’ is used for ‘procedure’. The statement (that ‘Code’ is used for
‘procedure) is fortified from the fact that procedural law is referred to as: (1) the ‘Code of Civil
Procedure’ and (2) the ‘Code of Criminal Procedure’ for the procedure to be followed in Civil Courts
and Criminal Courts respectively. Before going further, it is necessary to clarify that there is Substantive
Law as well as Procedural Law. The “Substantive Law” is the Law from which all ‘legal rights’ flow
to claim remedy under the Law. The Law relating to “Procedure to be followed” for enforcing
Substantive Law is called as the ‘Procedural Law’. The Substantive Law is always very strictly adhered
to or followed, the ‘Procedural Law ’ is not; unless it is in the nature of “Substantive Law”. Coming
back to expression Civil Code, it can be said that expression ‘Civil Code’ is not the Procedural Law
but the ‘Substantive Law’ of Marriage, Divorce, Custody of Children and so on. In other words,
‘Uniform Civil Code’ means the same or similar or uniform Law of Marriage, Divorce, Custody of
Children or Family Law or Personal Law for all Citizens of India whether they are Hindus, Muslims,
Christians or Parsis.
2. Constitutional Duty
Having comprehended the expression ‘Uniform Civil Code’, it can now be said that, after
independence, on 26 th November, 1949, India gave to itself the “Constitution”. The Written Constitution
of India invests ‘Powers’ in Parliament to make-and-unmake any law for the country. The Constitution,
under Article 44, has laid down the Directive Principles of the State Policy to endeavor to frame
Uniform Civil Code – for all Citizens and throughout the territor y of India. But the Parliament failed
to perform its constitutional duty by not framing the Uniform Civil Code. Therefore, the Hon’ble
Shri K.M. Munshi, in the Constituent Assembly, in Parliamentary Proceedings, said: “if Uniform Civil
 INTRODUCTION 19

Code is not framed now then it will never be framed”. The prophesy of Hon’ble Shri K.M. Munshi
has come true and till date, India has not framed the Uniform Civil Code. The reason for not
framing Uniform Civil Code, in short, can be that the phrase (Uniform Civil Code) has in it the thre e
confrontations; (1) Political, (2) Social and (3) Religious.
Political: The Nation is divided into two parties; one in favour of and one against the framing
of Uniform Civil Code. Both have to play with the ‘Doll’ of Divide-and-Rule Policy to win the next
Election. The ‘Doll’ to play with, in India, is the ‘Dividing of Hindus and Muslims’. Both Political
Parties (one in Power and one in Opposition) play with this Doll to win the next election. Resultant
is that India fails to perform its Mandatory Constitutional Duty.
Social: No doubt, there is unity of God inasmuch as, according to Hindus, God is One and
also, according to Muslims, God is One. Yet, socially, it is most difficult, if not impossible, to bring
them on one common platform.
Religious: The Constitution of India gives all powers to Parliament to make-unmake any and
every Law. But any Law made by Parliament has to keep religious activities intact/unbroken so that
all Religions are treated equally.
The aforesaid three confrontations (Politically, Socially and Religiously) are the hurdles in
framing the Uniform Civil Code and the bitter truths. But the sweet truth is that there is ‘Uniformity
in Diversity’ in Religions and Personal Laws. The same can be noticed from the following:
A. The Uniformity in ‘Diversity of Religions’.
Religion of Hindus: Generally, the scholars appear to have accepted that the word “Hindu”
is derived from the river Sindhu otherwise known as Indus which flows from Punjab. The Persians
pronounced this word as Hindu and named their Aryan brethren as Hindus. Those who are in India
are Indians, the same way, those who lived on bank of Sindhu are Hindu but not those who follow
any particular religion. Then what is Hindu religion? Indeed, it is difficult to define or even
adequately describe the Hindu religion. Whatever it may be, but, surely and certainly, it is an
admitted fact that it is the oldest religion which started to develop from 500 BCE. Further, it is
admitted that Hindu Texts, “Shruti” (Heard) and “Smriti” (Remembered) discuss: (a) theology,
(b) philosophy, (c) mythology, and so on, and the Hindu “ Trimurti ” (f=eq f r Z ) 16 is the Only One God.
Thus, Hindus believe in devotion to a Single God. But, then, in Vedic times, Indra, Varuna, Vayu
and Agni came to be worshiped as God. Later on, Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh came to be added.
In the course of time, Rama and Krishna came to be added. Gradually, different philosophic
concepts held sway in different sects and in different sections of the Hindu community and, as
such, a large number of Gods came to be added. As a result, today, the Hindus present the
spectacle of a ver y large number of Gods. But, truly, it is rather overgeneralization to say that Hi ndu
Religion is Polytheism. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also declined to accept 17 that Hindu
religion is Polytheism – in other words, Hindu religion is Monotheism.
Though the term ‘Hindu’ is not defined anywhere but, surely and certainly, Jains, Buddhists
and Sikhs are included in the term ‘Hindu’; may be – perhaps and in all probability – because these
religions are offshoots of Hinduism as they all are idolaters and, in some respect, they flow from
orthodox Hinduism. Therefore, they are governed by Codifying Statutes of 1956, namely, (1) Hindu
Marriage Act, (2) The Hindu Succession Act, (3) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and (4) Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act. Whatever, it may be but, even according to Buddhists, Jains and
Sikhs, God is One as can be seen from the following.

16 . Hindu-Trinity consists of : (i) Brahma, the Creator, (ii) Vishnu, the Preserver and (iii) Shiva, the Destroyer,
who has " Trimurti " ( f= e q f r Z – three forms).
17 . Shashtri Yagnapurushdasji vs. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya, AIR 1966 SC 1119.
20 FAMILY LAW

Religion of Jains: The word “Jain” is derived from Sanskrit word Jina – Conqueror. One who
conquers all inner passions like attachment, desire, anger, pride greed, etc. is called as Jaina. Th e
three main principles of Jainism are ‘Ahimsa’ (non-violence), ‘Anekantavada’ (non-absolutism or
dictatorship) and ‘Aparigraha’ (non-possessiveness). Jains trace their history through a succession
of 24 teachers starting from Rishabhdeva and concluding with Mahavir. Therefore, it is more
necessar y to take notice of the fact that even according to Jains, Bhagwan Mahavir is the only God.
Religion of Buddhists: Buddhism originated from India in 4 th and 6 th Centuries BCE. It is
believed that Siddharth (Buddha) was born to King Suddhodana and Queen Maya. Siddhartha
(Buddha) grew up in K apila-Vastu, a place in the plains of modern Nepal-India border. Buddha
spent his life in today’s Bihar-UP. He reached enlightenment and gave his first sermon (in India)
at Dhamek Stupa. Buddhism is a religion that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and
spiritual practices, based on teachings of the Buddha. Therefore, if one independently checks the
ideology, philosophy and teaching of Buddhism, one will quickly reach to the conclusion that
Bhagwan Buddha is the only God.
Religion of Sikhs: The word “Seekh” means Learner. Sikhism originates from Punjab region
of Indian Subcontinent during 15 th Century. The fundamental beliefs are enshrined in the “Guru-
Granth-Sahib”. The religion is based on the teachings of Guru Nanak, the 1 st Guru. Sikhs believe
that: (1) for feeling presence of God, meditation (Simran) on the words of Guru-Ganth-Sahib
through Kirtann and Jam Japo is essential and necessar y, and (2) to have control on Five Thieves,
namely, Lust, Rage, Greed, Attachment and Conceit/Pride. Sikhism is monotheistic religion and
believes that God is omnipresent and that he is Vahiguru [means – God is Nirakar (shapeless),
Akaal (timeless) and Alakh (invisible to physical eyes)]. All it means is that Sikhs believe in faith
and meditation in the name of One Creator – One God.
Religion of Muslims: Muslims believe that, with the first human being (Adam and Eve who
came from heaven to earth) came the religion of Islam. The term Islam is derived from the word
“Salam” (Safety) and word “Muslim” is a noun of the term Islam and means one who is on the ‘road
of safety leading to God’. It is believed (by Muslims) that, with the advent of time, people lost th eir
ways and were not on the ‘road of safety leading to God’. Therefore, God sent many Rasools =
Messengers (including Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and lastly, Mohammed) to bring people to
‘road of safety leading to God’. The God sent messages (verbally) to Muhammad through angel
Gabriel (Jibril) to bring people to ‘road of safety leading to God’. Those messages (sent by God
to bring people to road of safety) are recorded in the Quran. All it means that Muslims believe:
“(there is) No God except the – God and Mohammed is Messenger of the – God”
– in Arabic – La 18ilaha 19illa 20 Al 21+ilaha 18, Mohammed ur Rasool Allah.”
Long and short of it, Muslims believe in Unity of God.
Religion of Christians: Christianity is an Abrahamic Religion that began in the mid-first
century. The Modern-world Scholars virtually agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew. He was conceived
by Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, named as Mary. Jesus is the person of the Trinity = Threesome:
(a) Father, (b) Holy Spirit and (c) Son. First and third person of the Trinity is the Jesus. Jesus began
his own ministry, preaching his message orally. But then Jewish Authorities arrested Jesus, tried
him and, at the end, Pontius Pilate ordered him to be crucified only to rise thereafter. His followers
have become the Christians. Recapping it, Christians believe in unity of God.

18 . La=No,
19 . Ilaha=(any) God.
20 . Illa=Except.
21 . Al=the