Pleas against laws allegedly unfair to women dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed three petitions against allegedly discriminatory provisions in laws covering the Muslim, Hindu and Christian communities. The bench pointed out that had already said before that the remedy to such petition “lies somewhere else and not by knocking at the doors of the courts”.

The petition, filed by the Ahmedabad Women Action Group and others, the Lok Sevak Sangh and others, and the Young Women’s Christian Association and others, was filed before a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice A M Ahmadi, Justice Sujata V Manohar and Justice K Venkataswami.

The AWAG petition sought that the court declare void the Muslim personal law, which allows polygamy, and which allows a Muslim man to divorce his wife without her consent, without taking the matter to the courts. They also sought that the act of a Muslim husband taking more than a wife be declared an act of cruelty.

The petition also sought that the provisions of the Sunni and Shia laws of inheritance which discriminated against women in their share be declared void.

The Lok Sevak Sangh sought, among others, that the unfettered discretion allowed to a Hindu spouse to make testamentary disposition without providing an ascertained share of his or her spouse and dependant, be declared void.

The court said the petitions did not deserve disposal since the arguments advanced wholly involved issues of state policies, with which the court will ordinarily had no concern.

“Further, we find that when similar attempts were made, of course by others, on earlier occasions this court held that the remedy lies somewhere else and not by knocking at the doors of the courts,'' the apex court judges observed in their judgement.

The court also noted that in the decision in the case of Maharshi Avadhesh vs Union of India (1994) on the issue of a uniform civil code, given by Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice R M Sahai, the observations on the desirability of enacting a uniform civil code were incidentally made, and never intended to be a court directive.

The court also the challenge to the Muslim women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act was pending before a Constitution bench. ''We, therefore, do not see any reason to multiply proceedings in that behalf,'' the judges added.

Citing a series of earlier decisions declining court interference on similar issues, the court declined to entertain the petitions.