X v. State of Assam & Others, 2026

The petitioner-husband approached the Gauhati High Court after the Sub-Registrar-cum-Marriage and Divorce Registrar, Barpeta, refused to register his Talaq-E-Hassan.

The petitioner stated that his wife had left the matrimonial home in 2018 and had not returned despite his efforts at reconciliation.

He cited cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage as reasons for proceeding with divorce.

The petitioner pronounced Talaq-E-Hassan on three separate occasions: 22 March 2026, 26 April 2026 and 27 May 2026.

The petitioner stated that each pronouncement was made in the presence of witnesses and that the respective Talaqnamas were forwarded to his wife.

According to the petitioner, there was no reconciliation or resumption of cohabitation after the first and second pronouncements.

After the third pronouncement on 27 May 2026, the petitioner claimed that the marriage had become dissolved and that there was no further scope for reconciliation.

He subsequently submitted an application dated 2 June 2026 under Section 12 of the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024, seeking registration of the divorce.

The concerned Registrar refused to register the divorce, following which the petitioner approached the High Court.

The State argued that the earlier 1935 Act had been repealed, and consequently the post of Registrar created under that legislation had also been abolished.

The State submitted that the petitioner should approach the jurisdictional Marriage & Divorce Registrar under the 2024 Act.

The wife did not appear before the High Court despite service of notice.

The Gauhati High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) while explaining the nature and procedure of Talaq-E-Hassan.

The Court noted that Talaq-E-Hassan involves three successive pronouncements of Talaq.

After the first pronouncement, if the spouses resume cohabitation within the prescribed period, the divorce is treated as revoked.

If there is no resumption of cohabitation, the second pronouncement is made after the required interval and during the appropriate period of purity.

The second pronouncement may similarly be revoked through reconciliation or resumption of cohabitation within the relevant period.

If there is no revocation after the second pronouncement, the third pronouncement in the third period of purity makes the Talaq irrevocable, following which the marriage stands dissolved and the wife is required to observe Iddat.

The Court observed that Talaq-E-Hassan is not presently prohibited in India.

However, the Court could not direct the particular respondent to register the divorce because the 1935 Act had been repealed, resulting in the abolition of the relevant post created under that legislation.

The Court directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Marriage & Divorce Registrar under the 2024 Act.

The Registrar was directed to examine whether the divorce was actually effected by the person claiming to have pronounced it and to verify the identity of the person appearing before him.

If the requirements of Section 12 and its proviso are satisfied, the Registrar must make the appropriate entry in the divorce register.

The Court clarified that the parties seeking registration must be present and their signatures must be obtained before the relevant entry is made.

If the Registrar refuses registration, the petitioner may take recourse to the remedy under Section 17 of the 2024 Act.

The wife was given liberty to challenge the Talaq-E-Hassan before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

The judgment is important because it distinguishes Talaq-E-Hassan from forms of unilateral or instant Talaq that have been subject to different legal treatment.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's discussion in Shayara Bano (2017) to explain that Talaq-E-Hassan involves a time-separated and revocable process before the third pronouncement makes the divorce irrevocable.

The decision emphasises that registration of divorce and the validity of the underlying divorce are related but distinct questions.

The Registrar's role under Section 12 is not merely ministerial; the Registrar must satisfy himself about who effected the divorce and whether the claimed divorce was actually effected.

The judgment also demonstrates the importance of the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024 following repeal of the earlier 1935 legislation.

The Court avoided directing an officer whose authority under the repealed legislation no longer existed and instead directed the petitioner towards the current statutory mechanism.

The decision preserves the procedural safeguard that the parties must appear before the Registrar and provide their signatures before the divorce entry is made.

The Court also maintained the wife's legal safeguards by expressly recognising her right to challenge the divorce before an appropriate forum.

The case therefore illustrates the interaction between Muslim personal law, statutory registration requirements and judicial review.

The judgment is significant for understanding the legal distinction between pronouncement of Talaq and its official registration under a state statute.