This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-41008802

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Indian court rules against instant divorce Indian court rules against instant divorce
(35 minutes later)
India's top court has ruled the practice of instant divorce in Islam unconstitutional, marking a major victory for women's rights activists.India's top court has ruled the practice of instant divorce in Islam unconstitutional, marking a major victory for women's rights activists.
In a 3-2 majority verdict, the Supreme Court said legislation must follow. In a 3-2 majority verdict, the court called the practice "unIslamic".
India is one of a handful of countries where a Muslim man can divorce his wife in minutes by saying the word talaq (divorce) three times.India is one of a handful of countries where a Muslim man can divorce his wife in minutes by saying the word talaq (divorce) three times.
The landmark court decision came after petitions challenging the so-called "triple talaq" custom were filed. The landmark court decision came in response to petitions challenging the so-called "triple talaq" custom.
The cases were filed by five Muslim women who had been divorced this way and two rights groups. The cases were filed by five Muslim women who had been divorced in this way and two rights groups.
Three of the judges called the controversial practice "unIslamic, arbitrary and unconstitutional". The court has also asked parliament to legislate on the issue. "Muslim women in India have suffered for the last 70 years. It's a historic day for us, but it doesn't end here. I cannot tell you how much Indian women have supported us, despite their religions," Zakia Soman, an activist from Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, one of the groups which contested the practice, told reporters.
"Muslim women in India have suffered for the last 70 years. It's a historic day for us, but it doesn't end here. I cannot tell you how much Indian women have supported us, despite their religions," Zakia Soman, a women's rights activist, from Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, one of the organisations who contested the practice, told reporters. What is instant divorce?
Even though it has been practised for decades, the unilateral instant "triple talaq" divorce has no mention in Sharia or the Koran. In recent years, many cases have emerged of Muslim men in India divorcing their wives by issuing the so-called triple talaq by letter, telephone and, increasingly, by text message, WhatsApp and Skype. A number of these cases made their way to the courts as women contested the custom.
Islamic scholars say the Koran clearly spells out how to issue a divorce - it has to be spread over three months which allows a couple time for reflection and reconciliation. Even though it has been practised for decades, triple talaq divorce has no mention in Sharia or the Koran.
Activists say most Islamic countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, have banned triple talaq, but the custom was thriving in India. Islamic scholars say the Koran clearly spells out how to issue a divorce - it has to be spread over three months, allowing a couple time for reflection and reconciliation.
In recent years, many cases emerged of Muslim men in India divorcing their wives by issuing the so-called triple talaq by letter, telephone, and increasingly by text message, WhatsApp, and Skype. A number of these cases made their way to the courts as women contested the custom. Activists say most Islamic countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, have banned triple talaq, but the custom has been thriving in India.
India does not have a uniform set of laws on marriage and divorce that applies to every citizen. India does not have a uniform set of laws on marriage and divorce that apply to every citizen.
What did the court say?
Three of the judges called the controversial practice "unIslamic, arbitrary and unconstitutional". One of the judges, Justice Kurien Joseph, said the practice was not an essential part of Islam and enjoyed no protection.
Chief Justice JS Khehar, in a differing opinion, said that personal law could not be touched by a constitutional court of law.
The differing judgements also recommended that parliament legislate on the issue. However this is not binding and is up to parliament to take up.