Muslim Divorce in Hyderabad: Talaq, Khula, Mehr, Iddat and Maintenance

This guide is for Muslim women and men in Hyderabad and Telangana facing a divorce, and for their families. It explains what the statutes and the Supreme Court say about talaq, the 2019 law on triple talaq, a wife’s case for divorce in court, khula and mubaraat, mehr, iddat and maintenance after divorce, and where these cases are heard. It does not state religious rulings; where the law rests on Muslim personal law that no statute sets out, the guide says so.

Which law applies · Talaq and the 2019 Act · A wife’s case in court · Khula and mubaraat · After divorce: iddat, mehr and maintenance · Children · Special Marriage Act · Where cases are heard

Which law applies

Under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, in questions regarding marriage, “dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower” and other listed matters, “the rule of decision in cases where the parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)” (section 2). The Act names these under dissolution of marriage but does not define them or set out any procedure for them.

Four other statutes also apply:

• the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, which sets out the grounds on which a wife can obtain a court decree of divorce;
• the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, on what a divorced woman is entitled to receive;
• the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, on triple talaq;
• and, for maintenance, section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Talaq and the 2019 Act

• The Supreme Court in 2017: in Shayara Bano v Union of India, a Constitution Bench of five judges ordered: “In view of the different opinions recorded, by a majority of 3:2 the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ – triple talaq is set aside.” The order is about talaq-e-biddat; it does not deal with other forms of talaq, khula or mubaraat.
• What the 2019 Act covers: “talaq” in the Act means “talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband” (section 2(c)). The Act deems itself in force from 19 September 2018.
• Void: “Any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal” (section 3). Under section 2(c), “talaq” in section 3 means talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce.
• Offence: a husband who pronounces such talaq “shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine” (section 4). The offence is cognizable if information relating to the offence is given to an officer in charge of a police station by the wife or a person related to her by blood or marriage; it is compoundable at her instance with the Magistrate’s permission; and the accused is not to be released on bail unless the Magistrate, after hearing her, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for bail (section 7).
• Subsistence allowance: the wife “shall be entitled to receive from her husband such amount of subsistence allowance, for her and dependent children, as may be determined by the Magistrate” (section 5).
• Custody: she “shall be entitled to custody of her minor children in the event of pronouncement of talaq by her husband, in such manner as may be determined by the Magistrate” (section 6).

A talaq must be pronounced. In Shamim Ara v State of U.P. (2002), the Supreme Court said that “the talaq to be effective has to be pronounced”, and that “a mere plea taken in the written statement of a divorce having been pronounced sometime in the past cannot by itself be treated as effectuating talaq on the date of delivery of the copy of the written statement to the wife”. After setting out several High Court decisions, including two decisions of the Gauhati High Court, the first of which it summarised as holding that “talaq must be for a reasonable cause and be preceded by attempts at reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiters”, one from the wife’s family and the other from the husband’s, and that if the attempts fail, talaq may be effected, and the second to the same effect, the Court said: “We are in respectful agreement with the abovesaid observations made by the learned Judges of High Courts.”

A wife’s case for divorce in court

Under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, “A woman married under Muslim law” can obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of these grounds (section 2):

• the whereabouts of the husband have not been known for a period of four years;
• the husband has neglected or has failed to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years;
• the husband has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years or upwards;
• the husband has failed to perform, without reasonable cause, his marital obligations for a period of three years;
• the husband was impotent at the time of the marriage and continues to be so;
• the husband has been insane for a period of two years or is suffering from a virulent venereal disease;
• she was given in marriage by her father or other guardian before she was fifteen, and repudiated the marriage before eighteen, provided the marriage has not been consummated;
• cruelty, defined as: habitually assaulting her or making her life miserable by cruelty of conduct even if it does not amount to physical ill-treatment; associating with women of evil repute or leading an infamous life; attempting to force her to lead an immoral life; disposing of her property or preventing her from exercising her legal rights over it; obstructing her in the observance of her religious profession or practice; or, if he has more wives than one, not treating her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Qoran;
• any other ground recognised as valid for the dissolution of marriages under Muslim law.

Conditions apply to some grounds:

• Imprisonment: no decree is passed on this ground until the sentence has become final.
• Whereabouts unknown: a decree on this ground does not take effect for six months, and is set aside if the husband appears in that time and satisfies the court that he is prepared to perform his conjugal duties. The plaint must also state the names and addresses of the persons who would have been the husband’s heirs under Muslim law had he died on the date the suit was filed. They are given notice and have the right to be heard, and the husband’s paternal uncle and brother, if any, are cited as parties even if they are not heirs (section 3).
• Impotence: on the husband’s application, the court first gives him up to one year to satisfy it that he has ceased to be impotent.

Her rights to dower are not affected by a decree under the Act (section 5). Renunciation of Islam, or conversion to another faith, by a married Muslim woman does not by itself dissolve her marriage, though she may then seek a decree on the section 2 grounds. This does not apply to a woman who converted to Islam from another faith and re-embraces her former faith (section 4). The Act gives grounds only to the wife.

Khula and mubaraat

The 1937 Act names khula and mubaraat as matters governed by Muslim personal law, but no statute sets out their conditions or procedure. In Shayara Bano, Chief Justice Khehar, in an opinion that was in the minority on the main question, described talaq as divorce “at the instance of the husband”, khula as divorce “at the instance of the wife”, and mubaraat as “divorce by mutual consent”. That description is not a ruling of the Court on how khula or mubaraat take effect. A wife who seeks a court decree can rely on the grounds in the 1939 Act listed above.

After divorce: iddat, mehr and maintenance

• Iddat: the 1986 Act defines the iddat period, for a divorced woman, as three menstrual courses after the date of divorce if she is subject to menstruation; three lunar months after the divorce if she is not; and, if she is pregnant at the time of divorce, the period until the delivery of her child or the termination of the pregnancy, whichever is earlier (section 2(b)).
• What a divorced woman is entitled to: under section 3(1) of the 1986 Act, a divorced woman is entitled to “a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband”; where she maintains the children, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance for them for two years from their respective dates of birth; “an amount equal to the sum of mahr or dower agreed to be paid to her at the time of her marriage or at any time thereafter according to Muslim law”; and all the properties given to her before, at or after the marriage by her relatives, friends, the husband or his relatives or friends. The Act applies to a Muslim woman who was married according to Muslim law and has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband in accordance with Muslim law (section 2(a)).
• Applying to the Magistrate: if these are not paid or delivered, she or a person authorised by her may apply to a Magistrate (section 3(2)). If the Magistrate is satisfied that the former husband, having sufficient means, has failed or neglected to make or pay the provision and maintenance within the iddat period, or that the mahr has not been paid or the properties not delivered, the Magistrate may make an order “within one month of the date of the filing of the application”. The provision and maintenance is fixed having regard to “the needs of the divorced woman, the standard of life enjoyed by her during her marriage and the means of her former husband”. If it is impracticable to decide within that period, the Magistrate may, for reasons recorded, decide after it (section 3(3) and its proviso). If the former husband fails without sufficient cause to comply, the Magistrate may issue a warrant to levy the amount in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence him, for any amount still unpaid after the warrant is executed, to imprisonment “for a term which may extend to one year or until payment if sooner made” (section 3(4)).
• Danial Latifi (2001): upholding the 1986 Act, a bench of five judges of the Supreme Court concluded that a Muslim husband “is liable to make reasonable and fair provision for the future of the divorced wife which obviously includes her maintenance as well. Such a reasonable and fair provision extending beyond the iddat period must be made by the husband within the iddat period in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act”, and that his liability under section 3(1)(a) “is not confined to iddat period”.
• After iddat, if she cannot maintain herself: where a divorced woman has not remarried and is not able to maintain herself after the iddat period, the Magistrate may order such of her relatives as would be entitled to inherit her property on her death according to Muslim law to pay maintenance, in the proportions in which they would inherit. Where she has children, only the children are ordered to pay, and if they are unable, her parents. If a parent is unable to pay, that share may be ordered on other relatives who have the means. Where she has no such relatives, or they do not have enough means, the Magistrate may direct the State Wakf Board functioning in the area where she resides to pay (section 4).
• Section 125 CrPC (now section 144 BNSS): in Mohd. Abdul Samad v State of Telangana (10 July 2024), an appeal from a Telangana High Court order in a Family Court maintenance case, the Supreme Court’s joint order stated: “If Muslim women are married and divorced under Muslim law then Section 125 of the CrPC as well as the provisions of the 1986 Act are applicable. Option lies with the Muslim divorced women to seek remedy under either of the two laws or both laws.” If she also uses section 125, any order passed under the 1986 Act “shall be taken into consideration under Section 127(3)(b) of the CrPC” (now section 146(3)(b) of the BNSS). The court also said the 2019 Act provides a remedy “in addition to and not in derogation of” section 125. The BNSS’s section 144 treats as a “wife” a woman “who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried”.
• Choosing the 1986 Act or the general law: if, on the first hearing of a 1986 Act application, the divorced woman and her former husband both declare in writing, jointly or separately, that they prefer to be governed by sections 125 to 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate decides the application accordingly (section 5).
• Mehr: the 1986 Act lets a divorced woman apply to the Magistrate for the mahr or dower agreed (section 3(1)(c) and (2)), and the 1939 Act preserves dower rights on a court divorce (section 5). The Limitation Act, 1963 has no article that names dower; take advice on time limits for a claim to mehr.

See our guide on maintenance in the Family Court.

Children

Under the 2019 Act, where the husband pronounces talaq as defined in that Act, the wife is entitled to custody of her minor children “in such manner as may be determined by the Magistrate” (section 6). Under the 1986 Act, a divorced woman who maintains the children is entitled to provision and maintenance for them from the former husband for two years from their respective dates of birth (section 3(1)(b)). Separately, section 144 of the BNSS lets a Magistrate order a person having sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain his child, where the child is unable to maintain itself, to pay a monthly allowance for the child (section 144(1)(b) and (c)). For custody generally, see our guide on child custody in Hyderabad.

Marriages under the Special Marriage Act

A marriage solemnised or registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is dissolved under that Act, by petition under section 27 or by mutual consent under section 28. In Abdul Samad, Justice Nagarathna said that a Muslim woman married under the Special Marriage Act who is divorced “cannot get the benefit of the 1986 Act” and “would have to proceed either under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and/or under Section 125 of the CrPC”.

Where cases are heard

• Family Court: a Family Court has jurisdiction over suits and proceedings “for a decree of nullity of marriage … or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage” and “for maintenance”, and exercises the maintenance jurisdiction of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Family Courts Act, 1984, section 7). In Hyderabad, the Principal Family Court and the I and II Additional Family Courts sit in the Integrated Family Court complex, “Kalpataru Building, Purna Haveli, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad”.
• Magistrate under the 1986 and 2019 Acts: under the 1986 Act, applications are made to a Magistrate (section 3(2)), meaning a Magistrate of the first class in the area where the divorced woman resides (section 2(c)). Under the 2019 Act, subsistence allowance and custody are determined by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class in the area where the woman resides (sections 2(b), 5 and 6). Whether a particular application in Hyderabad is heard by a Magistrate or by the Family Court is a question to confirm with a lawyer.
• Registration of marriage: the Telangana Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2002 covers “all the marriages performed by persons belonging to any caste or religion”, and says that “No marriage performed in this State to which this Act applies shall be deemed to be invalid solely by reason of the fact that it was not registered under this Act” (sections 2(a) and 16). See our guide on marriage registration in Telangana.

Related guides: family and divorce matters, contested divorce, mutual consent divorce, maintenance, child custody and domestic violence.

For a discussion about a divorce, mehr or maintenance matter with Musab Hashmi & Associates, call +91 89771 24916 or send an enquiry. Do not include identity numbers or copies of documents in the first message.

General legal information, not legal advice. Checked on 27 October 2026 against the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Telangana Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2002 (India Code texts, each read through an Internet Archive copy of the official India Code file, except the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read from the copy on the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee website, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read from the Gazette of India text), the Supreme Court judgments in Danial Latifi v Union of India (28 September 2001), Shamim Ara v State of U.P. (1 October 2002), Shayara Bano v Union of India (22 August 2017) and Mohd. Abdul Samad v State of Telangana (10 July 2024), and the official website of the Integrated Family Court, Hyderabad.