The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a private religious body styling itself as an “Idara-E-Shariya Islami Court” has no legal authority to adjudicate upon the marital status or matrimonial rights of an individual.

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad ruled that such an institution cannot function as a Court established under the Constitution or any statute and cannot pass a legally binding order declaring a marriage dissolved.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a Muslim woman challenging an order dated January 18, 2022, issued by the Idara-E-Shariya Islami Court, which purported to declare that she had been divorced.

Idara-E-Shariya Had Declared Divorce

The petitioner had earlier lodged a complaint against her husband and in-laws alleging harassment, cruelty and ill-treatment. An FIR was subsequently registered at Mahila Thana, Raipur, under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC.

Despite the pending criminal proceedings, the Idara-E-Shariya Islami Court issued the January 18, 2022 communication declaring the petitioner divorced.

The woman challenged not only the communication but also the authority of the religious institution to determine her marital status.

Religious Body Cannot Act as a Parallel Court

The High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India, (2014) 7 SCC 707, concerning the legal status of Dar-ul-Qaza and fatwas.

The Supreme Court had held that adjudicatory power must flow from a valid law and that a fatwa issued by a Dar-ul-Qaza or similar body has no legal sanction and cannot be enforced through coercive legal process.

Applying those principles, the Chhattisgarh High Court held:

“Respondent No.9 cannot be recognised as a Court constituted under the Constitution or any statute.”

It further held that the institution had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the marital status of the petitioner or determine whether she stood divorced.

January 18, 2022 Order Declared Legally Ineffective

The High Court declared that the purported order/communication dated January 18, 2022, insofar as it purported to determine the petitioner's marital status or dissolve her marriage, was without legal authority.

The Court held that the communication could neither create, extinguish nor alter any legally enforceable right or status of the parties.

It further clarified that any opinion, verdict or decision issued by the religious institution cannot be enforced through coercive process or treated as a binding adjudication of civil or matrimonial rights.

Talaq-e-Hasan Constitutional Validity Left Open

The Court specifically clarified that it was not deciding the larger constitutional question concerning the validity of Talaq-e-Hasan.

The issue is already pending before the Supreme Court, including in proceedings concerning the constitutional validity of unilateral Talaq-e-Hasan.

The High Court observed that the pendency of those proceedings cannot confer jurisdiction upon a private religious institution which otherwise does not possess such authority.

Rule of Law Remains Paramount

The Court also made it clear that the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 118/2021 and other statutory remedies available to the petitioner would remain unaffected and would have to be dealt with independently by the competent authorities.

In a significant observation towards the end of the judgment, the Court said that religion may guide an individual's conscience and personal faith, but a religious institution or private body cannot assume the authority of a Court established by law.

The Court emphasised that religious belief cannot be used to determine or enforce the legal status and rights of an individual contrary to the rule of law and constitutional framework.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed in part, with the impugned communication declared legally ineffective to the extent that it purported to determine the petitioner's marital status or dissolve her marriage.

Case Details:-

Case: [Petitioner] v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh High Court

WPC No. 795 of 2022
Judgment Delivered On : 07.09.2026.