A Muslim couple from Orissa, forcibly separated by the community after local clerics issued a fatwa that they were divorced even as they wanted to live together, today told the Supreme Court that the police had not provided them protection, despite the court's orders.
Nazma Biwi's husband Sher Mohammed had pronounced triple talaq in an inebriated condition in 2003 but later realizing his mistake, decided to live with his wife and three children.
The couple's counsel submitted that despite an order issued by the apex court on April 21, the Orissa Government had not provided any protection to them, and they were still living separately due to threat from the community.
Orissa government counsel Shibo Shanker Mishra contradicted the petitioners' submission, and asserted that the apex court's orders of providing protection to the couple had already been complied with.
Mishra also sought time to file an affidavit in the case, as directed by the court on the earlier date.
Observing that there was no urgency in the matter, a Bench of B P Singh and Justice R V Raveendran posted it for hearing after the summer vacation.
On April 21, the court had directed the Orissa Government to provide police protection to the two, after local clerics at Bhadrak in Orissa issued a Fatwa that they were divorced and could not live together.
"No one can force them to live separately. This is a secular country. All communities---Hindus or Muslims should behave in civilised manner", the three-judge Bench had responded, to a complaint by the petitioner that the couple continued to be ostracised by the Muslim community at Bhadrak.
Earlier Nazma had approached the High Court against the fatwa and had sought police protection from her community men who were allegedly harassing the couple.
The incident had created a nation-wide controversy with various women organisations and civil society groups taking up cudgels on behalf of the harassed couple.
The clerics had said that if Nazma wanted to live with her husband, she must perform 'halala' (she must marry another man and the marriage must be consummated, after which she can get a divorce and then re-marry her first husband).
The Supreme Court had on January four this year sought an explanation from the Orissa Government on the petition by the couple accusing authorities of not providing them protection.
The couple had sought a direction for local police to take immediate action against the villagers threatening them and not allowing them to live together with their children.
"An impression seems to be created that mobs have a right to take law into their hands and the police will not intervene because it is supposedly a religious matter," they had said in their petition, adding that "even if there are religious matters they must bend in favour of fundamental rights." The couple's sordid tale began on July 15, 2003, when some community members said that an intoxicated Mohammed had uttered triple talaq, a claim which has been denied by both.
Upset with the community's attitude, the couple then approached the Mufti, who, on September 11, 2003 had issued a fatwa that the divorce was not effective as triple talaq was uttered under intoxication.
However, a mob had approached another Mufti on September 28, 2003 and had obtained another fatwa to the contrary, the couple claimed in their petition.
