After A Visitation Only Case In Common Pleas Court: Fill & Download for Free

The Seventh Amendment provides:In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.You will notice, if reading this carefully, that the right to jury trial is not “guaranteed,” but “preserved.” There are many types of cases where there is no right to a jury trial—most notably those cases that lie in “equity” (where there was never a right to trial by jury), but also cases where liability is created by statute, as such cases are not “suits at common law.” (Family law cases are both equitable and created by statute, and as such, there’s no right to jury in these either, though historically there had been from time to time as procedural statutes permitted—juries were permitted in paternity trials prior to the advent of all-but-irrefutable DNA testing when credibility of the witnesses was an important issue.)Furthermore, although most of the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated” against the States per the Fourteenth Amendment, the functions of judge and jury are considered generally procedural and not substantive, and the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the $ 20 limit for jury trials, or for that matter the right to jury trial at all, has been incorporated, so States are free in general to develop their own criteria for what qualifies for a jury trial.The LII Annotated Constitution has this explanation, summarising the case law:The Amendment governs only courts that sit under the authority of the United States, including courts in the territories and the District of Columbia, and does not apply generally to state courts. But when a state court is enforcing a federally created right, of which the right to trial by jury is a substantial part, the state may not eliminate trial by jury as to one or more elements. Ordinarily, a federal court enforcing a state-created right will follow its own rules with regard to the allocation of functions between judge and jury, a rule the Court based on the “interests” of the federal court system, eschewing reliance on the Seventh Amendment but noting its influence. Where the “interests” of the state and federal systems can be reconciled, however, a court should endeavor to implement the rules of the state courts.LII U.S. Constitution Annotated, Courts In Which The Guarantee Applies (footnotes omitted, you can visit the last link to see them.)In Pennsylvania, the right to trial by jury is spelled out in Article I, § 6 of the state constitution with similar language to the federal constitution:§ 6. Trial by jury. Trial by jury shall be as heretofore, and the right thereof remain inviolate. The General Assembly may provide, however, by law, that a verdict may be rendered by not less than five-sixths of the jury in any civil case. Furthermore, in criminal cases the Commonwealth shall have the same right to trial by jury as does the accused. (May 18, 1971, P.L.765, J.R.1; Nov. 3, 1998, P.L.1328, J.R.2)There is, in general, a right to a jury trial in Common Pleas court, if the right to jury trial otherwise exists. See Pa. R.C.P. No. 128(f). A party must specifically claim that right. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1007.1(a). However, whether the right exists or not is governed by other sources of law, including the nature of the cause of action; “[the Pennsylvania Supreme Court] has consistently held that the right to a jury trial as preserved by our Constitution extends to all causes of action that existed at the time the Constitution was adopted,” and by implication, may be modified in cases that are created by statute. Mishoe v. Erie Ins. Co., 573 Pa. 267, 279, 824 A.2d 1153, 1160 (2003).The great purpose of the constitution in providing that “trial by jury shall be as heretofore, and the right[ ] thereof remain inviolate,” was not to contract the power to furnish modes of civil procedure in courts of justice, but to secure the right of trial by jury in its accustomed form before rights of person or property shall be finally decided. Hence the right of trial as it then existed was secured, and the trial itself protected from innovations which might destroy its utility and its security as a palladium of the liberties of the citizen. But beyond this point there is no limitation upon legislative power in constructing modes of redress for civil wrongs, and regulating their provisions.Id. at 280, quoting Haines v. Levin, 51 Pa. 412, 414 (1866).The question refers to “civil magistrate cases” which are heard in district court, itself a creature of a statutory scheme (although Article V § 7 of the state constitution authorises the existence of magisterial district judges, their jurisdiction and powers are only as provided by law) that limits its jurisdiction and specifies a simplified process with the aim of making the disposition of small claims simpler and easier. See, generally, Title 42, Chapter 15 of the Consolidated Statutes and the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure for Magisterial District Justices. There is no provision for jury trials in these cases for the preceding reasons.However, there are no cases in which the district court has exclusive civil jurisdiction—there is in all cases an option either (which may be exercised by the plaintiff) not to bring the case in district court and to bring it in common pleas court in the first instance, where a demand for jury trial may be made per Rule 1007.1, or (which may be exercised by either party) to file what is called an “appeal” but is actually a de novo proceeding in the common pleas court:Under subdivision B, the court of common pleas on appeal can exercise its full jurisdiction and all parties will be free to treat the case as though it had never been before the magisterial district judge, subject of course to the Rules of Civil Procedure.Pa. R.C.P. M.D.J. No. 1007, Official Note. Thus, the commencement of a case before a district court deprives no one of a right to a jury trial, if the right existed in the first place, because there is a procedure by which the jury trial may be demanded as of right in any event.As a final note, I refer the reader to Mr. Davidson’s answer, which in addition to being much more concise than mine, provides some very practical reasons not to insist on a jury trial. Any case that’s eligible for district court will also be eligible for “compulsory judicial arbitration” and my county too will require that you pay a fee of at least $ 400 to demand trial de novo after arbitration.

Some answers are pretty poor and promote misinformation repeated in western media to the point that it is damaging to someone who do get arrested in Japan. So let me correct it here. I tailor the answer to someone who isn’t Japanese. Also, because most foreign legal resident in Japan aren’t going to be involved in serious crime like armed robbery or murder, this advice is primarily targeted toward less serious one like being involved in fight in bar. Lastly, I must stress that I AM NOT A LAWYER, so most of my answer is based on googling in Japanese. And I’m not giving advice on how to get away with murder.First off, often repeated facts of Japanese criminal justice system like heavy reliance on confession and +99% conviction rate in court are presented in West to imply that Japan is a sort is Orwellian state. This is highly misleading.To start off, in Anglo American common law system, you can plea guilty, which is essentially a confession in open court. In USA, this is further encouraged by plea bargaining and prosecutional overcharge, where there are real chance that innocent may confess to avoid much harsher sentence.In Japanese legal system based on continental civil law, there is no such thing as plea to begin with. When Western media say Japanese police rely heavily on confession, they are omitting crucial information. Japanese police rely on Inculpatory confession, such as confession about the location of body or murder weapon or how one gain entrance to a building, or where the victim was stabbed. Because it is presumed from the outset that many innocent do confess under coercion, the court take very dim view of confession which solely consist of “I did it” (which may happen under American plea bargaining).If you are innocent, you can't confess inculpatory fact even under torture. So the idea that police in Japan will beat out a confession of guilt to frame an innocent person is based on ignorance (and frankly, racial prejudice has a lot to do with persistence of his misinformation, in my opinion). There are four death penalty cases (all happened in 1940s and 50s) which were later reversed. In all these cases, it is alleged that police tortured the suspects to sign a completely blank confession sheet, then the investigators filled it up (such as the location of the body) later as facts emerged, making it looks like a slum dunk evidence of guilt. Since then, there is a strict rule about logging of investigation, supervised by the assigned prosecutor. In death penalty case, to rule out the possibility of police implanting their knowledge of investigation into confession, it is required that confession must be something the investigating police didn’t know. So if the police discovered the body, then later, the suspect happen to confess the location, that is not good enough for death penalty case, as the police may implant it.If you are innocent and your story check out, the police will release you. But if you refuse to say, for example, where you are at the time of crime, then, you will be detained and you will be interrogated hard, almost non stop till you crack, at which point, they want confession of the details of crime, so they can check it out to make sure you are indeed the guilty one. You may not agree with this as right to silence in Japan doesn’t mean right to be free from interrogation or detention. But at least, the practice has a point. Japanese public consider the trade off worth it as the police gain extra avenue of reliable evidence.Then, 99% conviction rate and the defence lawyers who never won in court in their entire career. In reality, most defence lawyer win by keeping their clients away from the court where the conviction is near certain. In UK, the prosecution has a policy to charges if the chance of guilty verdict is more than not-guilty verdict. Basically, the UK prosecutor would charge if the chance of conviction is 51%. In Japan, the prosecutor would never bring charge unless the conviction is certain. The prosecutor would argue case in front of professional judge (recently amended to include lay judge). Most crucially, because they are not lay jury, the judges must publish reasoning for every verdicts,which are available on DVD disc. This make the judgement by any judge highly predictable, technical and bureaucratic.So only cases which is virtually certain for guilty verdict end up in court. That would leave a lot of criminal cases which don't end up in court. However between accused being charged and suspect walking out free, there are thing called, summary charge (which work like a plea of no contest in the common law), charge being downgraded to misdemeanour, and most crucially, matter being settled privately rather than by criminal law. And this is where Japanese defence lawyer work really hard.Say, you have a fight in a bar, and gave the other guy a concussion (in which case, you are the aggressor even if the other guy started it) or you got really drunk in a party and woke up next to a girl next day. Next, next day, you get a visit by police because the girl says you raped her while she was drunk.When you are arrested in Japan, the police can detain you 72 hours (3 days) but they can extend it 10 days twice. Usually, if they arrest you, it indicate that they have preliminary evidence to indicate that you are involved in crime. Moreover, if you are foreign, you may be deported even if you are convicted for a minor crime. Unless you are very certain that your arrest is a clear misunderstanding and you know you can easily prove your innocence, it is crucial that you get a paid lawyer straight away as you have only 23 days (3 + 10 + 10) , at which point, the prosecutor may decide to charge you where the chance of guilty verdict is 99%. The chance of you avoiding guilty verdict depends on how fast your lawyer act because the main job of Japanese defence lawyer is to keep you away from the court, and they do this by liaising with police/prosecutor and more crucially negotiating with victim.The paid lawyer would advice you to pay a medical bill of the guy you knocked out plus, say, extra 1K USD worth of compensation plus most crucially, a letter of apology from you. Also, the lawyer will be informed of the evidence against you, at which point, the defence lawyer is allowed to “comment” on investigation. If you told your defence lawyer that the guy you KOed was really drunk and acting obnoxious (maybe groping your girlfriend) and one of staff saw it, then your lawyer will inform to the police about it. The police will likely to check that avenue of investigation and if your story check out, while technically, you are still clearly guilty of assault for punching a guy, you lawyer might plead with the prosecutor that you should get a break. if you just gave the guy a concussion, the prosecutor may even talk to the alleged victim that he should take 1K you offered.If you broke the guy’s jaw, then prosecutor may still think that you should at least have a criminal record (meaning your case is like to end up as summary charge), but your lawyer might convince the prosecutor that you “accidentally” ended up breaking the jaw. This can be done if the victim support your version of the event, and your apology money may go up to 10k plus medical expenses. While this look a lot like a bribe, this isn't paid to police at the expense of victim. It is paid to the victim and if he willingly accept, no one is losing out.For an accusation of rape, you lawyer may negotiation with the victim that, while you don't dispute the account of her, you too are very drunk and don't remember what happened. And most crucially, you are very sorry that you caused her such distress, and here is an apology money of, say, about 5K USD, which cover for your whatever medical expenses and your emotional distress.When your lawyer successfully managed to obtain a letter from the accuser/victim that they are satisfied with your response, you may avoid full court case and criminal record (or let off with fine) or the accuser may even drop the charge so this things completely goes away. That is a win for you and your lawyer, and even a win for victim for being vindicated and compensated. And it is a win for the state as a criminal case is essentially downgraded to a civil one and amicably settled without lengthy court case. For a rape case, the victim avoid highly stressful and adversarial court proceedings where defence may accuse her of lying. And yes, for rape case in court, the defence will probe the accuser’s sexual history, like whether she was in the bar to hook up.Now, imagine a foreigner with poor Japanese language and poor understanding of how Japanese justice work. And all he read so far in English is how Japanese police are racist and they will try to frame him, and the prosecutor has 99% conviction rate. He is very much likely to be on full combat mode, trying to prove his innocence. And he often do this by insisting that by accusing the girl of being a liar or the guy he broke jaw for starting the fight. Basically, he insists it is not his fault and apology is out of question.Japanese criminal justice case, if it is not serious case of murder, alarmed robbery, etc, is not a simple matter of black and white, guilty and not guilty. In vast majority of cases, it end up as varying degree of grey in the middle. But if one erroneously think it is adversarial battle between the defence and the prosecutor, then you might force your case as such, and push himself into a court case where likelihood of conviction is incredibly high. For assault, it is a close and shut case as he engaged in fight. Since the perpetrator refused to admit his guilt and apologise to the victim, the prosecutor have no choice but to charge the guy. The case will go to court, he will be found guilty and get a criminal record and then,he will be deported.For sexual assault case, what if he was so drunk that he doesn't even know the girl's name and she even claim to the police that she clearly objected, (which he didn't understand because he was too drunk and have poor grasp of language). Him not knowing the girl, and this is technically a stranger rape case, in which case the balance is hugely tipped in favour of accuser. He say he was so drunk but he was sober enough to have sex. Also, “I didn’t understand her objection because i don’t understand Japanese” is not a great argument to make. It look very much like he got drunk and went too far, yet he is not remorseful as he is accusing the victim of lying. The guy is very much likely to be charged. At such point, he finally get a Japanese lawyer, who really don't like to have a moron like him as a client.The lawyer, after checking what the prosecutor already amassed, conclude that the case is not salvageable as the victim refuse to see the accused lawyer. His client already dug his grave too deep to crawl out of. At this point, the lawyer may advice this guy to recant his story and say he did force himself on her while being drunk and he is very sorry for this and double sorry for accusing her of lying, and he is deeply ashamed for being a coward. While conviction is 99% certain anyway, the accused might get some reduced sentence for apologising at the last minute so this is still the very best legal advice. Yet the accused think Japanese justice is indeed a joke because even his lawyer is trying to frame him for the crime he doesn't think he committed. But the fact is he sabotaged himself for every chance he had.So, don't listen to people whose only knowledge is from English news vast majorities are written by people who speak no Japanese, and who has zero inclination to actually ask Japanese people about Japan (or google in Japanese). If you get into a trouble, especially a legal trouble in Japan, listen to Japanese people who actually know how shit work and trying to help you.

This situation could be viewed with a simpler analogy.Analogically speaking, Instant Coffee was instant coffee, but was trying to get the status of ground coffee which had the status of being perceived as “real coffee” —based on ontological understanding of “What is coffee”. Indian Supreme Court just said that instant coffee is not ground coffee and therefore not real coffee, but that instant coffee is instant coffee.There are two issues intertwined into this question:Whether the recent invalidation (i.e. judgement delivered by the Indian Supreme Court on 21st August, 2017) of the instant Triple Talaq would be permanent.Whether a new divorce law would replace the instant triple talaq.The answers to the above question (i.e. TLDRs) are:a) Instant Triple Talaq was already invalid. The recent judgement just stated it again, to clear a lot of constitutional and legal interpretation cobwebs, and to put it into the unequivocal status.b) The Indian Supreme Court has asked the government of India to make a new divorce law. It is a recommendation. But there are important considerations as to whether the new law would be applicable just to Muslims or be a part of a uniform civil code.Now, onto the detailed answers of the statements made above:A. The instant Triple Talaq was never constitutional, and now has been declared to be “not-constitutional” by the Supreme Court judgment:An unconstitutional thing was declared as unconstitutional, again, i.e. after doing it in Shamim Ara versus state of UP case in 2002, in February 2015, and in many other cases.The verdict was on INSTANT Triple Talaq, i.e. the kind whereby a Muslim man could utter his divorce decision thrice to his wife, face to face, or via a Whatsapp or Skype or a text message and that divorce statement would become valid.As compared to the instant version, the grounded (as based in religious scriptures) Triple Talaq mode of divorce[1] [2] is a time-intensive and method-dependent process (i.e. doesn’t happen when a man says “Talaq, Talaq, Talaq”).To quote from the judgement of the Supreme Court:The liability to pay maintenance was accepted, not because ‘talaq-e-biddat’ – triple talaq was not valid in law, but because the husband had not been able to establish the factum of divorce. It is therefore not possible to accept the submission made by learned counsel on the strength of the Shamim Ara case.Source: http://supremecourt.gov.in/pdf/LU/Supreme%20Court%20of%20India%20Judgment%20WP(C)%20No.118%20of%202016%20Triple%20Talaq.pdf(Page 201; bold font added for emphasis)“In the two preceding parts of our consideration, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to disapprove and derecognize the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’.”(page 202, ibid)Image SourceB. In past years, the instant talaq system was declared illegal in several courts of India.No new law followed from such judgments, as existing laws were referenced as valid grounds for divorce among Muslims. Such cases include:Allahabad High Court terms ‘triple talaq’ as unconstitutionalIn 2002, in a landmark ruling Shamim Ara v. State of Uttar Pradesh[math]48[/math] the Supreme Court invalidated arbitrary triple talaq and held that a mere plea of talaq in reply to the proceedings filed by the wife for maintenance cannot be treated as a pronouncement of talaq and the liability of the husband to pay maintenance to his wife does not come to an end through such communication. In order for a divorce to be valid, talaq has to be pronounced as per the Quranic injunction.In the same year, a full bench in the Bombay High Court in Dagdu Chotu Pathan v. Rahimbi [math]49 [/math]had held that a Muslim husband cannot repudiate the marriage at will. The court relied upon the Quranic stipulation: “To divorce the wife without reason, only to harm her or to avenge her for resisting the husband’s unlawful demands and to divorce her in violation of the procedure prescribed by the Shariat is haram”. All stages – conveying the reasons for divorce, appointment of arbitrators, and conciliation proceedings between the parties – are required to be proved when the wife disputes the fact of talaq before a competent court. A mere statement in writing or oral deposition before the court about a talaq given in the past is not sufficient to prove the fact of a valid talaq.These judgments in turn relied upon two earlier judgments of Justice Baharul Islam pronounced in 1981 while presiding over the Gauhati High Court – Sri Jiauddin v. Anwara Begum and Rukia Khatun v. Abdul Khalique Laskar which had declared: “The correct law of talaq as ordained by Holy Quran is: (i) talaq must be for a reasonable cause; and (ii) it must be preceded by an attempt at reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters, one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his. If their attempts fail, talaq may be effected.”[math]50[/math]Following Shamim Ara, there were a plethora of verdicts which declared instant triple talaq invalid and safeguarded the rights of women approaching the courts for maintenance. [math]51[/math]So this had become the settled position of law.Source: http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/10-%E2%80%93-3-%E2%80%93-Flavia-Agnes-%E2%80%93-Triple-Talaq.pdf ; (bold and italic font added)Instant Talaq being “un-Islamic”:The instant talaq mode was called “un-Islamic” since it was not mentioned to be in the Quran, and therefore not recognized by the Muslim Personal Law and wasn’t part of Indian constitutional rights. The Instant Talaq is an invalid form of talaq in many other countries having significant Muslim populations, such as Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, UAE, Yemen, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, etc.Triple Talaq, i.e. where a husband and wife, upon noting differences between them, go through a time-intensive period of separation and counseling by the family (to introspect on their differences) is still valid. The three interim time-periods are basically a ritualistic passage that gives a couple the time to think through their decision.WHAT DOES ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION MEAN?Summarily speaking, the above information indicates that every “instant triple talaq” case could be challenged in any Indian court, especially after 2002.The Supreme Court just gave a judgment on an existing Muslim Law. In the next six months (and beyond, if the government doesn’t pass on a new law), a Muslim person can get a divorced based on existing Muslim Marriage laws. Muslim Marriage Laws are untouched in this judgement.However, stepping beyond from this legal right as enshrined through theory, in practice, many Indian women —not just the Muslim ones—find it very difficult to approach the court to get justice for her rights.The issues restraining her, come from:being abandoned suddenly with no say in the process (by instant triple talaq),the above situation leading to financial difficulties and considerable powerlessness from lack of social support, aided by enforcement of sharia laws by local religious clergies (qazis or maulanas, etc), because of such abandonment.The instant triple talaq was (or is) such a strong force not because it was legit, but because it was socially backed upon. The issue of abandonment that came from perceived irrevocable status of instant talaq, was a major contributor to such status of powerlessness. Lack of financial strength, and not receiving any spousal support or “maintenance” was another major contributor to powerlessness of women.The point to ponder in this context is: would this judgement which reiterates a legal point already made 15 years back, bring about any change in the mindset now? Would awareness of their legal rights increase among Muslim women? If yes, all’s well.If not, how can the rights of Muslim women be better protected legally – what kind of laws could better implement protection of women’s rights?WILL THERE BE ANY NEW LAW?The Supreme Court has made such a recommendation to the government[3] . It remains to be seen whether the government will pass on a law that could be serve as some form of deterrent to instant triple talaq; so far, the government has said that it will proceed with such an issue in “a structured manner”[4] . Such probable proposals could include making sure local qazis abide by the constitutional ruling of the courts, instead of having their own set or rulings and judgments.Follow-up measures could include creating a different set of “personal law” pertaining to divorce among the Muslim population.Or, follow-up measures could exclude all forms of “personal law”-s as ingredients of laws regarding marriage and divorce, pertaining to all religions. This means existing laws on divorce and marriage pertaining to all other religions would have to be discarded. This somewhat goes against fundamental rights (freedom of expression of religion) enshrined in the Indian constitution and would require extensive changes (and therefore roadblocks). Therefore, doesn’t seem much likely to happen soon.There is also another very important set of road block, that comes from contrary standpoints as arising from religious embankments, which would be visible if we go a bit deeper into this particular judgement.One of the chief petitioners of this case, Shayra Bano found herself divorced by her husband of 15 years by instant triple talaq.Shayra Bano, one of the chief petitioners of the landmark judgement. Image Source: Meet Shayara Bano, the victim who began the fight against the injustice of instant triple talaqWhat happened in her case?In a nutshell,Shayra Bano was having some problems in living with her husband (“performed her matrimonial duties intermittently”) and in-laws,and was visiting and leaving her “matrimonial home” from time to time,following which, her husband claimed to have visited her in her parental home, being concerned with her well-being and providing financial support from time to time, and had also asked for “restitution of conjugal rights”,Shayra Bano claimed physical and mental abuse in her “matrimonial home”— due to which she would leave her “matrimonial home”—the reasons being dowry demands,This made Rizwan Ahmad feel that his wife was not ready for reconciliation, following which he had sent her the ‘talaqnama” (Statement of divorce), in which he wrote about receiving “threat of inflicting injury to yourself and of consuming poison and threat of implicating me in false case”,[5]From Shayra Bano’s perspective, she was fighting abandonment, alleged abuse, pressure of dowry, in-laws trouble, and having a say in her marriage.From her husband’s perspective, he was facing a “mental patient”, and the stress of probability of being falsely implicated owing to his wife’s self-harming endeavours.If we put our attention to a recent verdict, with almost the same situation and content, but in a different form, we will see a different form of resolution. In the following case, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:A Hindu son can divorce his wife for the cruelty of trying to pry him away from his “pious obligation” to live with his aged parents and provide shelter to them, the Supreme Court has held.A woman becomes a part of the husband’s family and cannot seek to separate him from his parents for the sole reason that she wants to entirely enjoy his income, a Bench of Justices Anil R. Dave and L. Nageshwara Rao observed in a judgment.Insisting her husband to live separately from his parents is a western thought alien to our culture and ethos, Justice Dave, who wrote the judgment, said.“It is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from his parents on getting married at the instance of the wife, especially when the son is the only earning member in the family. A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre income,” Justice Dave wrote.Shuddering at the thought of the legal tangles in which the “poor husband” would have found himself caught in had she succeeded in committing suicide, the Supreme Court concluded: “The mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a husband under tremendous stress.”Source: Hindu son can divorce wife if she tries to separate him from aged parents, bold font addedThe SC judge said suicide or threat to self-harm is akin to inflicting cruelty on the husband, and therefore a valid ground for divorce:He focused on the “tremendous stress” the husband might have faced if she had succeeded in killing herself. “One can imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law [after a suicide], which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life,” the judgment said.It said a suicide attempt alone was grounds for ending a marriage. “In our opinion, only this one event was sufficient for the appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty,” it said.Source: India grants divorce to man whose wife refused to live with in-lawsSince wish to set up a different household by a Hindu married woman could be seen as “trying to separate a Hindu son from his parents”, in this case, the Supreme court of India granted divorce to the specific married couple.In Shayra Bano’s case, if her husband didn’t send her the instant triple talaq, and if the couple were Hindu, he could still get divorced.I rest my perspective here.Footnotes[1] Three types of Talaq | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis[2] Islamic divorce system: All you need to know - Times of India[3] Triple talaq verdict Highlights: Modi says SC order grants equality, Rahul welcomes decision[4] Government rules out need for new law on triple talaq[5] Triple talaq verdict updates: Jaitley says SC judgment a great victory and welcome step