All talaq forms remain ineffective for 90 days, says SC while confirming wife’s revocation

The Supreme Court has upheld a ruling of the Sindh High Court validating the withdrawal of a divorce notice issued by a wife acting under delegated powers, reiterating that no form of talaq – whether pronounced by a husband or exercised by delegation – acquires legal effect until the mandatory period of 90 days under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 has elapsed.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi dismissed the appeal filed by Muhammad Hassan Sultan, who had challenged two orders issued by the Union/Arbitration Council in Karachi. The controversy arose from a divorce notice issued by his wife on July 3, 2023, which she withdrew on August 10, within the legal deadline, prompting the President of the Council to close the proceedings the following day.

Read: SC pushes reforms to end custodial killings

The Court noted that the legal framework leaves no ambiguity: Section 7 applies to “all forms of talaq in any form” and the law makes no distinction between talaq-e-biddat, talaq-e-ahsan or divorce exercised by delegated authority.

Citing earlier precedents, the court reaffirmed that “no form of talaq is effective until the expiration of ninety days from the day on which written notice is given to the President,” and added that the effect of Section 7 is “binding,” allowing for revocation during the conciliation period.

Central to the case was the delegation clause in the couple’s marriage contract. The court recorded that “there was no doubt that the petitioner delegated this right without imposing any restrictions or conditions on it and, in fact, specifically stated that it was being delegated ‘unconditionally’.” As a result, the Court held that the defendant wife “was in the place of the husband” and therefore had the same authority to withdraw the notice before the legal deadline expired.

The petitioner attempted to argue that custody proceedings in New York reflected bad faith intent. The Court rejected the claim, noting that the foreign litigation had no bearing on the legality of the revocation under Pakistani law. It supported the High Court’s approach, stressing that the only decisive question was whether the withdrawal occurred within the ninety days.

Read also: The Afghan regime represents a threat to the region and the world: DG ISPR

The Supreme Court also upheld a second impugned order dated January 3, 2024, which pertained to another notification issued by the petitioner. The court found that the president acted correctly under existing rules, including SRO 1086(K)/61, which assigns jurisdiction to Pakistan’s diplomatic missions when one of the parties resides abroad.

In addressing the legal system, the Court warned against interpretations that would dilute Section 8, noting that such readings “would defeat the purpose of section 8, which is to provide legal recognition to the delegation of the right to divorce to the wife and to impose on this right the same conditions as on the husband’s right to divorce under section 7.”

Concluding the matter, the court ruled that the High Court ruling did not entail “any legal defect” and dismissed the petition after converting it to an appeal.