According to Iranian law, the husband is the exclusive holder of the position of “head of the family” (Art. 1105). As such, the husband provides his wife with the cost of maintenance (Art. 1106), “which includes dwelling, clothing, food, furniture, and provision of a servant if the wife is accustomed to have servant or if she needs one because of illness” (Art.
Ms. Esseku and Mr. Inkoom had been married for 30 years. The husband claimed to have divorced his wife in 1995 under Muslim tradition and custom. They had one property together, which Mr. Inkoom sold without consulting Ms. Esseku or their five children, all of whom he evicted off the property. The trial court held that the property was a joint property of both parties, and nullified the sale. Examining the evidence, the Superior Court affirmed the holding because Ms. Esseku had made a “substantial contribution” to the property by building an additional two bedrooms to the house.
The appellant, Pathmanathan (husband), and the respondent, Indira Gandhi (wife), were married and had three children. In March 2009, the husband converted to Islam. In April 2009, the husband obtained certificates of conversion to Islam issued by the Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak over all three children as well as an ex-parte interim custody order over the children. In September 2009, he obtained a permanent custody order from the Syariah Court.
The applicant was given refugee status and had successfully applied for permission for his second wife to join him in Ireland. The present case arose when he sought to have his first wife join him. In considering the legal consequences of a polygamous marriage entered into in another country, the Supreme Court ruled that, where a man had married two wives under the laws of Lebanon, the first marriage is valid under Irish law but the second is not. The appellant (husband) had married two women in a manner permissible under the laws of Lebanon (their previous state of domicile).
The deceased was married to the second and third applicant under Islamic law. The marriage of the deceased and the third applicant was entered into before the marriage between the deceased and the second applicant. However, the deceased and the second applicant entered into a civil marriage to qualify for a home loan. Following the death of the deceased, The Registrar of Deeds, Cape Town, refused to register the title deed to the family home in the name of the third applicant.
The petitioner sought a divorce from her husband under common law rather than Islamic rite. After several years of marriage, (i) the petitioner discovered that the respondent had lied about being divorced prior to their marriage, (ii) the respondent stopped supporting her financially, and (iii) the respondent neglected their relationship.
The petitioner was divorced by her husband after 15 years of marriage by means of the talaq-e-biddat declaration. She filed a writ petition arguing that the declaration was unconstitutional. Talaq-e-biddat is a practice whereby a Muslim man can divorce his wife upon saying “talaq-e-baddat” thrice in one sitting. The wife’s consent is not required in this practice. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India declared the practice unconstitutional by a majority vote of 3:2 and injuncted Muslim husbands from pronouncing “Talaq-e-biddat” as a means for severing the marital ties.
Article 147 of the Islamic Penal Code specifies that the age of maturity triggering criminal responsibility is 15 Islamic lunar calendar years for boys, but only nine Islamic lunar calendar years for girls. This signifies that young girls can be charged as criminally responsible adults in Iran before they reach the age of puberty. Articles 237-239 forbid same-sex kissing and touching, which will be punished by 31-74 lashes.
Parliament enacted this law pursuant to the Supreme Court decision Shayara Bano v. Union of India. Section 3 of the Act bans and voids talaq-e-biddat declarations , while Section 4 stipulates imprisonment of up to three years along with fine for a Muslim man who pronounces talaq. Section 7 of the Act also declares the offence of pronouncing Talaq as a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence.
Article 6 (1) states that all Jordanians are “equal before the law” and that there shall be no discrimination between them in rights and duties on the basis of race, language, or religion. This is an overarching provision, without explicit mention of gender, however it does provide a basis for equality for “all” Jordanians. Article 6 does not apply to Muslim personal status matters, which are instead governed by the Jordanian Personal Status Law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Shari’ah courts (Article 103 (2) of the Jordanian Constitution).
