Question

Shamim Ara v State of U.P. relates to

• A. The condition precedent for a Muslim husband for rendering divorce is the pronouncement of divorce which has to be proved on evidence
• B. Option of puberty
• C. Guardianship in Marriage
• D. Dower

Hint:

Associate \textit{Shamim Ara}'s case with the requirement of "proof of talaq". It moved the law away from accepting a mere assertion of past divorce towards requiring actual evidence of a valid pronouncement.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks about the legal principle laid down in the Supreme Court case of \textit{Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. (2002)}. This is a landmark case concerning the law of 'talaq' (divorce) in Muslim Personal Law.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
In this case, the husband claimed in his written statement in a maintenance proceeding that he had divorced his wife long ago. The Supreme Court had to decide whether a mere plea of a past talaq in a legal document was sufficient to prove the divorce.
The Court held that talaq, to be effective, must be pronounced. The term 'pronounce' means to proclaim or utter formally. The Court ruled that a mere plea of a previous talaq in a written statement cannot be treated as a valid pronouncement of talaq. The husband must be able to prove the fact of the pronouncement of talaq, including the date and the circumstances under which it was pronounced.
The judgment emphasized that talaq cannot be whimsical or capricious. It must be for a reasonable cause and must be preceded by attempts at reconciliation. Thus, the pronouncement must be proved as a fact on evidence. Option (A) correctly summarizes this ratio. The other options are not the subject matter of this case.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The case of \textit{Shamim Ara v. State of U.P.} established that a talaq must be pronounced and proved on evidence; a mere statement in court pleadings is not sufficient. Therefore, option (A) is the correct answer.