 |
||
|
||
|
||
The All-India Democratic Women's Association (AIDWA) has billed the model `nikahnama' — drafted by the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) — as discriminatory. While everything that is favourable to women have been included “only as a pious piece of advice,” all that militate against women's rights have “been described as Islamic injunctions,” the Association said.
Briefing mediapersons here, the AIDWA member, Maimoona Mollah, demanded a ban on “arbitrary triple talaq” (divorce) that is practised only in India. Underlining the fact that elsewhere in the world, including Islamic countries, there were conditions for `talaq', she articulated the AIDWA's differences with the AIMPLB on “triple talaq in one sitting.”
Women's groups, she said, had hoped that the Board would take a clear and strong position against this “retrograde practice”. “However, the wording of the sentence `to avoid talaq in one sitting' or to `avoid talaq without compulsion' is far too vague and will not give any relief to women victims of this practice. Also, the AIDWA is upset by the silence over a woman's right to divorce. “Even `khula' (woman's right to initiate divorce) is omitted in the draft.”
Releasing a letter submitted to the Board on Sunday by the AIDWA, Ms. Mollah said a model `nikahnama' must necessarily be framed in a way to safeguard the welfare and rights of the bride. The AIMPLB draft, according to the Association, neither protects the interests of the bride nor gives her the right to put her own conditions for the marriage.
Also, the AIDWA is opposed to the directive in the draft that in case of any unresolved dispute between the two parties, they should appeal to a Sharia court. According to Ms. Mollah, “this directive impinges on the rights of Muslim women to appeal to secular courts on issues of direct concern to them.”
This was unacceptable. The AIDWA feels that “it seems to be part of the longstanding demand of the AIMPLB for the establishment of Sharia courts.”
Further, the Association is opposed to the provision in the draft pertaining to the marriage of minors. Of the view that it condones marriage of minors, the AIDWA position is that the Child Marriages Restraint Act should be the guiding point on this issue.
Though appreciative of the fact
that the Board had addressed the issue of domestic violence, Ms. Mollah
said the language used in the draft left scope of misinterpretation. Demanding
a categorical instruction against violence, she noted: “The phrasing that
`the wife should be treated justly' and that `violence should be avoided'
is too vague and could be interpreted to mean that violence is permissible
but better avoided.”
|
||
|
||
|
||