The Land mark Judgment by Delhi High Court:

According a report appeared in the October 29, 2007, edition of the Indian Express, a leading English daily, Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed of the Delhi High Court, ruled, "If a talaq is pronounced in extreme anger where the husband has lost control of himself, it would not be effective or valid." There is no doubt that verdict had provided great relief to the Muslim women across the country. His Lordship also observed that, triple talaq or talaq-e-bidat (divorce in one go by merely repeating the term ‘talaq' thrice) is sinful but valid and such a mode for dissolution of Islamic marriages had caused "extreme misery to the divorced women and even to men, who are left with no chance to undo the wrong or any scope to bring about a reconciliation."

While issuing an injunction on courts that the Muslim Personal Law would supersede any contrary customs or usage, followed in dissolution of marriages, Justice Ahmed said, "From henceforth, triple talaq would only mean a single pronouncement of ‘talaq, revocable by the husband or wife if they decide to reconciliation." "This is for the first time that a court has made "attempts for reconciliation" mandatory after pronouncement of talaq. Till now, efforts for reconciliation, if any, were to precede the divorce pronouncement", says Krishnadas Rajagopal, an observer. "Differing with the present law that expiry of the iddat period, or three menstrual courses, would act as the deadline for estranged spouses to save their marriages, the court held that couples could still settle their differences by contracting a fresh marriage even after the period was over", Mr Rajagopal added.

It is needless to say that the court, through the above verdict, had set aside talaq-e-bidat and asserted that mere pronouncement of talaq did not ipso facto, or on the face of the act, amount to dissolution of marital tie between the spouses. The court also observed, "The wife upon whom talaq has been pronounced has the right of residence as well as of maintenance and she cannot be disturbed, she continues to be the wife of the man in the iddat period during the marital tie remains in suspense." Thus the court formalized the status of the divorced woman so that she could not be driven out by the husband like a domestic animal.

The court was hearing a bail petition of a young man who, in the absence of his wife, declared talaq in anger after a marital dispute, but later resumed conjugal relation with her, forgetting the fact that he had divorced her. The marriage soured again and the wife, Ayesha Anjum, left the matrimonial home along with their minor daughter. It was only then, when she returned to her husband's residence, she came to know that her husband had pronounced talaq against her in her absence. Following which she lodged a complaint of rape against her husband Masroor with the local Preet Vihar police station.