Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed that ‘talaq-e-hassan’ remained a valid form of divorce in the country and directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional marriage and divorce registrar under the 2024 Act to register the divorce.
| Photo Credit: Special arrangement
The Gauhati High Court had upheld the validity of ‘talaq-e-hassan’, a Muslim form of divorce where a husband pronounces the word ‘talaq’ once for three consecutive months.
While affirming its validity, the court directed petitioner Rakibul Bhuyan of Barpeta district’s Gelabil village to register his divorce under the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorce Act, 2024.
The petitioner said that his wife allegedly left him in 2018, two years after their marriage. After attempts at reconciliation failed, he pronounced talaq-e-hassan on March 22, April 26, and May 27, 2026.
He said that with the pronouncement of the third talaq, the marriage had broken. On June 2, he submitted an application to the sub-registrar-cum-marriage and divorce registrar in western Assam’s Barpeta under Section 12 of the 2024 Act.
His application was not accepted. The State government submitted in court that the 1935 version of the Act dealing with Muslim marriages and divorces had been repealed and the authority appointed under that law could no longer register the divorce.
The petitioner said that the marriage and divorce registrar could not have refused to register the divorce under the 2024 Act as ‘talaq-e-hassan’ was not prohibited in India.
Issuing the order on September 8, Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed that ‘talaq-e-hassan’ remained a valid form of divorce in the country and directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional marriage and divorce registrar under the 2024 Act to register the divorce.
“On such approach being made, the jurisdictional Marriage & Divorce Registrar shall consider the application of the petitioner and satisfy himself with regard to the fact as to whether the divorce was effected by the petitioner, who claims to have pronounced the same and also after identifying the petitioner to be the person pronouncing the divorce, proceed to decide as to whether the divorce would mandate a registration,” the order read.
The judge further said that if registration is refused, the petitioner could appeal under Section 17 of the 2024 Act.
Disposing of the petition, the judge also observed that the wife, who was not present in court despite notices being served, remained free to challenge the ‘talaq-e-hassan’ before an appropriate forum.
Published – September 12, 2026 03:58 am IST
