1.

WHETHER THE PRESENT MATTER IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF PUNYABHUMI.

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the appeal filed by the appellants in the

present case under Article 136 by way of special leave granted by the Supreme Court is not maintainable

and thus should be rejected on the grounds that there are other remedies available to the appellants before

approaching the Supreme Court. [1.1] and that there was no extraordinary circumstance or injustice by the

order of the family court [1.2]

1.1 THAT THERE ARE OTHER REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE

APPROACHING THE SUPREME COURT.

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the appellants did not use the other remedies

available to them before approaching the Supreme Court and thus this appeal should be dismissed. The

Supreme Court has stated that Article 136 can only be exercised in cases where special circumstances are

shown to exist1,and that whenever there is injustice done to a party or when a question of law of general

public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court, only then this jurisdiction can

be invoked. In the present matter there is no ambiguity of law or gross injustice or special extraordinary

circumstances or any of the aforementioned conditions and thus it is contended to dismiss the appeal filed

by the appellants.

The Supreme Court has imposed upon itself a restriction that before invoking the jurisdiction of the Court

under Article 136, the aggrieved party must exhaust any remedy which may be available under the law

before the lower appellate authority or the High Court.2 In the present matter, the appellants have not

exhausted the other remedies available and also does not constitute the pre requisites of appeal under

Article 136, thus this appeal is contended to be dismissed.

1
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65 : 1955 (1) SCR 941
2
Nirma Ltd v. Lurgi Lentges Gmbh (2002) 5 SCC 520: AIR 2002 SC 3695
It also has to be duly noted that during the matter was in Family Court, the order was merely passed for

the validity of talak in the present case, and did not have any mention of Uniform Civil Code or

constitutionality of the triple talaq. Thus the appellants cannot approach the Supreme Court under Article

136. Only those points can be argued at the final hearing of the appeal which were fit to be urged at the

preliminary stage when leave to appeal was asked for. It would be illogical to adopt different standards

at two different stages of the same case. 3

1.2 THAT THERE IS NO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE OR INJUSTICE BY THE

ORDER OF THE FAMILY COURT

It is contended before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the present matter, there are no extraordinary

circumstances prevailing in the case and that there was no injustice by the decision of the Family Court

and hence this Hon’ble Court should not admit the matter under Article 136 of the Constitution of

Punyabhumi.4 The Family Court took due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it duly

regarded the precedents set by the High Courts and Supreme Court on the matter and only then the order

was passed. The appellants should use the other remedies available for appeal to the decision of the

Family Court and direct appeal to the Supreme Court cannot be admitted.

In the present matter, due regard of the laws and set legal principles were followed by the Hon’ble Family

Court in its decision and thus it is contended to reject the appeal under Article 136. The Supreme Court in

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India5 cautioned against the use of Article 136 to the effect that judicial

discretion has to be in accordance with the law and set legal principles. In the present matter, clear legal

principles have been set by the Courts over time and the Supreme Court has recognized the principle of

3
Taherkhatoon v. Salambin Mohammad, AIR 1999 SC 1104 : (1999) 2 SCC 625.
4
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 4 SCC 666 : AIR 2002 SC 2036. N Suriyakala v. A.
Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196 : (2007) 3 JT 266.
5
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 588,613 : AIR 2004 SC 4618. Also in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai,
(2003) 12 SCC 395, 403 : AIR 2004 SC 77. Aero Traders Ltd v. Ravinder Kumar Suri, (2004) 8SCC 307 : AIR 2005
SC 15
Triple Talaq (Talaq ul biddat) in a number of cases6 and thus there is no substantial question of law or

extraordinary circumstances in order to invite special leave to appeal under Article 136.

It also has to be noted that Talak ul biddat is a set principle of divorce under Sunni law and thus

there was no injustice by the order of the Family Court by rejecting the case filed by the

appellants. Hon’ble Family Court stated that even though triple talaq is abhorrent or sinful, it is

legally binding as per the Muslim Personal Law.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted that there were no extraordinary circumstances, ambiguity of

law or gross injustice and thus the appeal should not be admitted under Article 136. The

appellants should use other remedies before approaching the Supreme Court as this matter does

not attract ingredients as set by the Supreme Court.

6
Ahmedabad Women’s Action Group (AWAG) and others v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 573 ; Jiauddia Ahmed
v. Anwara Begum (1981) 1 Gau.LR 358. A.S.Parveen Akthar vs The Union Of India decided on 27 December, 2002