Act 26 of 1937 — makes Muslim personal law the rule of decision for Muslims in the listed matters.
The sections below are the ones the LL.B. papers examine on this Act, with the unit that covers each and the cases decided on it. The official text is on India Code ↗.
Sections in the syllabus
s. 1(2)(d)
s. 2
- Shayara Bano v Union of India (Supreme Court, 2017) — talaq-e-biddat set aside
- Yousuf Rawther v Sowramma (Kerala High Court, 1971) — failure to maintain as a breakdown ground, and khula as the wife's gateway
- Itwari v Asghari (Allahabad High Court, 1960) — there is no "Muslim cruelty"; a husband who takes a second wife must explain himself
- Ghulam Sakina v Falak Sher (Lahore High Court, 1950) — the option of puberty survives a child-marriage's "consummation"
s. 2(7)
s. 3
s. 3(1)(a)
s. 3(1)(b)
s. 4
- Masroor Ahmed v State (Delhi High Court, 2008) — a talaq not communicated is no talaq, and even three pronouncements are one
- Shayara Bano v Union of India (Supreme Court, 2017) — talaq-e-biddat set aside
- Danial Latifi v Union of India (Supreme Court, 2001) — the 1986 Act upheld, and read to protect the divorced wife for life
s. 5
- Shayara Bano v Union of India (Supreme Court, 2017) — talaq-e-biddat set aside
- Lakshmi Sanyal v Sachit Kumar Dhar (Supreme Court, 1972) — the Parts of the Christian Marriage Act are self-contained, and Canon Law supplies the prohibited degrees
- Central Bank of India v Ram Narain (Supreme Court, 1954) — what domicile means: factum and animus
s. 5(1)
s. 5(2)
s. 7
s. 10
s. 10A
s. 16
s. 17
s. 19
s. 20
s. 28
s. 63
s. 118
s. 125
- Chand Patel v Bismillah Begum (Supreme Court, 2008) — marrying the wife's sister is irregular, not void
- Shamim Ara v State of U.P. (Supreme Court, 2002) — a talaq must be pronounced, for a reason, after an attempt at reconciliation
- Danial Latifi v Union of India (Supreme Court, 2001) — the 1986 Act upheld, and read to protect the divorced wife for life
- Noor Saba Khatoon v Mohd. Quasim (Supreme Court, 1997) — the children's maintenance is their own, not capped at two years
s. 144
- Chand Patel v Bismillah Begum (Supreme Court, 2008) — marrying the wife's sister is irregular, not void
- Shamim Ara v State of U.P. (Supreme Court, 2002) — a talaq must be pronounced, for a reason, after an attempt at reconciliation
- Noor Saba Khatoon v Mohd. Quasim (Supreme Court, 1997) — the children's maintenance is their own, not capped at two years
s. 488
s. s. 2
Covered in Unit 1 · Sources, Schools, Marriage and Mehr under Muslim Law.
s. s. 2 (dissolution of marriage, including talaq) — the requirements are judge-made
Covered in Unit 2 · Dissolution, Maintenance, Parentage, Guardianship and Property under Muslim Law.
s. s. 2 (dower) — the right of retention is uncodified
Covered in Unit 1 · Sources, Schools, Marriage and Mehr under Muslim Law.
s. s. 2 (dower) — the rules of mehr are uncodified
Covered in Unit 1 · Sources, Schools, Marriage and Mehr under Muslim Law.
s. s. 2 (gifts) — the law of hiba is uncodified
Covered in Unit 2 · Dissolution, Maintenance, Parentage, Guardianship and Property under Muslim Law.
s. s. 2 (guardianship) — the powers of guardians are uncodified; appointment by the court is under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890
Covered in Unit 2 · Dissolution, Maintenance, Parentage, Guardianship and Property under Muslim Law.
s. s. 2 (marriage and maintenance) — the grades of marriage are uncodified
Covered in Unit 1 · Sources, Schools, Marriage and Mehr under Muslim Law.
s. s. 2 (marriage) — the substantive rules are uncodified
Covered in Unit 1 · Sources, Schools, Marriage and Mehr under Muslim Law.
s. s. 2 (the words where the parties are Muslims)
Covered in Unit 1 · Sources, Schools, Marriage and Mehr under Muslim Law.
Cases on this Act
- Ghulam Kubra Bibi v Mohammad Shafi (Peshawar, 1940) — a nikah must be proved, witnesses and all
- Chand Patel v Bismillah Begum (Supreme Court, 2008) — marrying the wife's sister is irregular, not void
- Rashid Ahmad v Anisa Khatun (Privy Council, 1932) — a triple talaq once pronounced is final, whatever the husband meant
- Shamim Ara v State of U.P. (Supreme Court, 2002) — a talaq must be pronounced, for a reason, after an attempt at reconciliation
- Masroor Ahmed v State (Delhi High Court, 2008) — a talaq not communicated is no talaq, and even three pronouncements are one
- Shayara Bano v Union of India (Supreme Court, 2017) — talaq-e-biddat set aside
- Danial Latifi v Union of India (Supreme Court, 2001) — the 1986 Act upheld, and read to protect the divorced wife for life
- Noor Saba Khatoon v Mohd. Quasim (Supreme Court, 1997) — the children's maintenance is their own, not capped at two years
- Yousuf Rawther v Sowramma (Kerala High Court, 1971) — failure to maintain as a breakdown ground, and khula as the wife's gateway
- Itwari v Asghari (Allahabad High Court, 1960) — there is no "Muslim cruelty"; a husband who takes a second wife must explain himself
- Ghulam Sakina v Falak Sher (Lahore High Court, 1950) — the option of puberty survives a child-marriage's "consummation"
- Sir Dinshaw Manockji Petit v Sir Jamsetji Jeejeebhoy (Bombay High Court, 1908) — a Zoroastrian need not be a Parsi
- Lakshmi Sanyal v Sachit Kumar Dhar (Supreme Court, 1972) — the Parts of the Christian Marriage Act are self-contained, and Canon Law supplies the prohibited degrees
- Reynold Rajamani v Union of India (Supreme Court, 1982) — no divorce by mutual consent under the Divorce Act, and no importing English law
- Pragati Varghese v Cyril George Varghese (Bombay High Court, Full Bench, 1997) — the unequal grounds in s. 10 struck down
- John Vallamattom v Union of India (Supreme Court, 2003) — section 118 of the Succession Act struck down
- H. Venkatachala Iyengar v B.N. Thimmajamma (Supreme Court, 1958) — how a will is proved, and what suspicious circumstances do to the burden
- Central Bank of India v Ram Narain (Supreme Court, 1954) — what domicile means: factum and animus