NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES, KOCHI

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE - Is it a must? Is it a constitutional goal?

KENNEH JOE CLEETUS | ANUJA JACOB

INTRODUCTION: THE INDIAN BACKGROUND

The Constitution of India enacted on the 26th day of November 1949 resolved to constitute India as a Union of States and a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. Today, a population of over one billion Indians live in twenty eight states and seven union territories within India. In addition, about twenty five million Indians called non-resident Indians, reside in foreign jurisdictions. Within the territory of India, spread over an area of 3.28 million sq.kms., the large Indian population comprised of multicultural societies professing and practicing different religion and speaking different local languages coexist in harmony in one of the largest democracies in the world. The Indian Parliament, at the helm of affairs, legislates on central subjects in the Union and concurrent lists and state legislatures enact laws pertaining to state subjects as per the state and concurrent lists with regard to the subjects enumerated in the Constitution of India. Likewise, pertaining to the Judiciary, under article 214 of the Indian Constitution there shall be a High Court for each State and under Article 124 there shall be a Supreme Court of India. Under Article 141 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. However, the Supreme Court may not be bound by its own earlier views and can render new decisions. Part III of the Constitution of India secures to its citizens fundamental rights which can be enforced directly in the respective high courts of the states or directly in the Supreme Court of India by issue of prerogative writs under Articles 226 and 32 respectively of the Constitution of India. Under the constitutional scheme, amongst others, freedom of religion and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion is sacrosanct and is thus enforceable by a writ. Simultaneously, Part IV of the Indian Constitution lays down directive principles of state policy which are not enforceable by any court but are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles while making laws. Under Article 44 of the Constitution in this part, the state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of

India. However, realistically speaking, to date, a uniform civil code remains an aspiration which India has yet to achieve and enact.

Uniform Civil Code - Is it a must for India?

India has had a long history of personal laws. Till 1935, the Muslims in India followed different rules according to their practice. Khoja Muslims and Kutchi Memons are examples of this. The Kutchi Memons worshipped Hindu Gods and Ali is their tenth avatar instead of Kalki. They had the inheritance laws as per Hindus and also the marriage laws as per Hindus. When a common Muslim Personal law was formed, there were many minority creeds of Muslims who had to accept these laws though they differed from their practices. The Hindu laws, too were different in different parts of the country. However, they have undergone a turbulent change, courtesy, geographically united India. Child marriages were banned, Sati was banned, widow re-marriage was encouraged, divorce was introduced, and inheritance laws were amended. Narabali or human sacrifice, which was considered a religious practice of Hindus, was also banned. When India attained independence and the issue of Uniform Civil Code (UCC) arose, much was debated at the Indian Parliament in 1948. While the founding father of our constitution and Chairman of the Constitution Draft Committee, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, supported by eminent nationalists like Gopal Swamy Iyenger, Anantasayam Iyengar, KM Munshiji, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer and others favoured the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code; it was strongly opposed by Muslim fundamentalists like Poker Saheb and members from other religions. On 23rd November 1948 a Muslim member, in Parliament, gave an open challenge that India would never be the same again if it tried to bring in Uniform Civil code and interfere with Muslim personal law. Earlier, the Congress had given an assurance that it would allow Muslims to practice Islamic personal Law and the architects of the Constitution, therefore, found a compromise by including the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code under the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article - 44. Distinguished members like Shri Minoo Masani, Smt. Hansa Mehta and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur put in a note of dissent saying that one of the factors that has kept India

back from advancing to nationhood has been existence of personal laws, based on religion, which keep the Nation divided into watertight compartments in many aspects of life. They were strongly in favour of the view that Uniform Civil Code should be guaranteed to the Indian people within a period of five to ten years. But even after sixty-one years, because of perverse secularism and perverted communalism, Uniform Civil Code has not come into being.

Need for a Uniform Civil Code:

The need for uniform civil code has been felt for more than a century. The country has already suffered a lot in the absence of a uniform code for all. It is rather a pity that the longest and most elaborately written constitution in the history of mankind, the Indian constitution is responsible for creation of erosion in society. The society has been fragmented in the name of religions, sects and sex. Even at present, in India, there are different laws governing rights related to personal matters or laws like marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption and inheritance for different communities. The laws governing inheritance or divorce among Hindus are thus, very different from those pertaining to Muslims or Christians and so on. In India, most family law is determined by the religion of the parties concerned Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists come under Hindu law, whereas Muslims and Christians have their own laws. Muslim law is based on the Shariat; in all other communities, laws are codified by an Act of the Indian parliament. There are other sets of laws to deal with criminal and civil cases, such as the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Indian penal code. The multifarious castes and creeds and their sets of beliefs or practices are bewilderingly confusing and nowhere is a scenario like in India, of various personal laws jostling together, allowed. Does India need the Uniform Civil Code? Of course, it does. Even Italy has one, as do the rest of the developed world. It is high time that India had a uniform law dealing with marriage, divorce, succession, inheritance and maintenance. But, it must be realized that the scenario in India is extremely complex. India has a long history of personal laws and it cannot be given up easily. Unless a broad consensus is drawn among different communities, the Uniform Civil Code cant do much good to the country. The reality in India is much more complex than Western societies which

have been totally secularised. The need is to work on the existing laws in such a way that they dont go against any particular faith or religion. A Uniform Civil Code administers the same set of secular civil laws to govern different people belonging to different religions and regions. This supersedes the right of citizens to be governed under different personal laws based on their religion or ethnicity. The common areas covered by a civil code include: Personal Status Rights related to acquisition and administration of property Marriage, divorce and adoption Uniform Civil Code will in the long run ensure Equality. While other personal laws have undergone reform, the Muslim law has not. It perhaps makes little sense to allow Muslims, for example, to marry more than once, but prosecute Hindus or Christians for doing the same. Therefore, there is the demand for a uniform civil code for all religions. Also, UCC will help to promote Gender equality. Several liberals and womens groups have argued that the uniform civil code gives women more rights. However, the opponents of UCC argue that this law is poking into their religious practices. They feel that this code will affect the religious freedom of minorities. One fails to understand how abiding the law of land can go against religious principles! The claim that the sentiments of the minorities are not considered while implementing a common law is thus beyond comprehension. UCC does not insist people from one religion to start practicing rituals of other religions. All it says is, with changing living styles along with the time, there should be a Uniform Civil code irrespective of all religions as far s social ethics are concerned. The crusade for the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code and homogenizing the personal laws is justified and should receive the support of all progressive thinking Indians, not because of any bias, but because it is the need of the hour. But it needs to come on the heels of a political consensus and that is what needs to be evolved. It is rightly believed that the Uniform Civil Code is necessary to effect an integration of India by bringing all communities into a common platform which at present is

governed by personal laws which do not form the essence of any religion. India as a nation will not be truly secular unless uniformity is established in the form of rational non-religious codified laws. Politics apart, the case for a Uniform Civil Code - which will cover the entire gamut of laws governing rights relating to property, marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption and inheritance - has been most argued on behalf of women. There is universal agreement that personal laws, regardless of the community, are skewed against women. In the long sittings of the Constituent Assembly, it seems none had a notion about the injustice that was being done to women in the name of religion as also to the majority community by retaining certain customs among the minority communities and by giving them certain privileges. A uniform code provides equal rights to men and women. The absence of a uniform code is thus responsible for one calamitous vicissitude in the nation the subjugation of women in almost all the faiths. One reason why personalized laws based on religion is not favoured is because religious laws tend to be highly gender biased. Most major religions developed, over time, a bias towards women - treating them as somewhat inferior. In Christianity, Eve was meant to be the root cause of all evil. In Hinduism, Sati was practiced in some communities for ages till the British formally put a stop to it. The practice of dowry and the ill treatment of widows continue till today in many regions. In Islam, the staunchest Muslims dont let women travel alone, wear something revealing or go to work. These are just a few examples of the deep underlying biases that lie within faiths. Such practices are justified via religious texts or customs that simply must not be broken. It has taken generations of rebellion to inculcate any change within these religions. Also, religious laws cannot be viewed objectively. They are created from sentiments regarding what is correct according to conceptions of God. Thus to alter such a law one also has to change perceptions regarding core religious fundamentals. As a result, true progress in terms of equality can be hindered by many years. Let us take a look into the case of Imrana a 28 years old woman, and the mother of five children. On June 6, 2005, Imrana, was raped by her 69 year-old father in-law

Ali Mohammad. Soon after she was raped, a local Muslim panchayat (council of elders) asked her to treat her husband Nur Ilahi as her son and declared their marriage null and void! Can any law of the land justify this? The fact that such a verdict could take place in India in the year 2005 is insulting to our legal system. Had she been a Hindu or Christian, such a verdict would not have occurred, further highlighting the inequality of the situation. In India, secularism has come to mean non-intervening in the matter of religion. This needs to be relooked and debated as there cannot be any discrimination in the guise of secularism. The freedom to adopt any religion is enshrined in the Constitution. It seems quite an innocent and logical right. But from it springs the natural corollary of preaching and propagating a religion. In an educated society, it has no serious bearings but, in an illiterate and uneducated society, it has very grave consequences, especially when the whole game is politicized. The politicization results in appeasing the minority by giving them certain rights ultimately to catch their votes or to gain their sympathy. Secular India has upheld the freedom of religion at the cost of national unity. The interpretation of laws, in the absence of a uniform code for all religious communities debars other religious communities from becoming a party to the case in the court in which an appeal is made to restrain the religious heads from harassing the members of that community. A friend, an organization, even a brother is not accepted a party against injustice if he/she/it does not belong to that faith. The absence of a common code has thus, deprived the people of having a common cause and is responsible for the subjugation of reformers in the name of religion in the biggest so-called secular nation. Furthermore, the perception that a uniform civil code would change only Muslim personal law is wrong, and probably came about because the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is the only political party that actively supports it. Orthodox practices in Hindu personal law or Christian personal law will also have to undergo changes. For instance, the law pertaining to succession among Hindus is unequal in the way it treats men and women. The concept of the Hindu undivided family, with respect to succession, would be changed under a Uniform Civil Code. Christian personal law does not allow the succession of wealth to charitable

organizations. Under a Uniform Civil Code, this law may very well be altered. This also explains why historically changes in personal law have been resisted not just by one community, but by the ruling orthodoxy in all of them. Moreover, many Islamic countries have codified and reformed Muslim personal Law to check its misuse. Muslim countries like Egypt, Turkey and even Pakistan have reformed their laws. Terence Farias, in his chapter The Development of Islamic Law points out that the 1961 Muslim Family Law Ordinance of Pakistan "makes it obligatory for a man who desires to take a second wife to obtain a written permission from a government appointed Arbitration Council." The interesting point regarding Pakistan is that until 1947 both India and Pakistan had governed Muslims under the Shariat Act of 1937. However, by 1961 Pakistan, a Muslim country had actually reformed its Muslim Law more than India had and this remains true today. There is no reason why India should continue with vastly discriminatory personal laws. In fact, the reforms meted out in Tunisia and Turkey helped abolish Polygamy. Polygamy has also been either banned or severely restricted in Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco, Iran and even in Pakistan. Besides Muslims who live in U.S.A., Australia, U.K. and other parts of Europe readily accepted the civil laws applicable uniformly to all citizens in the respective countries but do not feel insecure on that account. So, then, why, in India should there be such a feeling? Iran, South Yemen, and Singapore all reformed their Muslim laws in the 1970s, although Iran appears to have backslid in this respect. In the end the argument is quite clear.

Uniform Civil Code and the Indian Constitution

No one in our country, our political leaders or individuals, have ever concentrated their efforts towards defining the Uniform Civil Code. All we know is that some common law covering issues relating to marriage, succession and property is called Uniform Civil Code. Now, what does our Constitution say about Uniform Civil Code? In article 44, our constitution clearly specifies the UCC: "The State shall endeavour to secure the citizen a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India". The constitution is thus, very clear that unless a uniform civil code is followed, integration cannot be imbibed. However, the fact is that it is only a directives principle laid

down in the constitution and as Article 37 of the Constitution itself makes clear, the directive principles shall not be enforceable by any court. Nevertheless, they are fundamental in the governance of the country. This shows that although our constitution itself believes that a Uniform Civil Code should be implemented in some manner, it does not make this implementation mandatory. Hence, the debate on having a uniform civil code for India still continues. The demand for a uniform civil code essentially means having one set of laws that will apply to all citizens of India irrespective of their religion. Though the exact contours of such a uniform code have not been spelt out, it should presumably incorporate the most modern and progressive aspects of all existing personal laws while discarding those which are retrograde.

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE: AN ASPIRATION OR AN ILLUSION

Article 44 of the Constitution of India requires the state to secure for the citizens of India a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India. As has been noticed above, India is a unique blend and merger of codified personal laws of Hindus, Christians, Parsis and to some extent of laws of Muslims. However, there exists no uniform family related law in a single statutory book for all Indians which is universally acceptable to all religious communities who co-exist in India.

Indian Case Law: Directions to enact a Code.

The Supreme Court of India for the first time directed the Indian Parliament to frame a Uniform Civil Code in 1985 in the case of Mohammad Ahmed Khan Vs. Shah Bano Begum reported as All India Reporter 1985 SC 945. In this case a penurious Muslim woman claimed maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after her husband pronounced triple Talaq (divorce by announcing the word Talaq thrice). The Apex Court held that the Muslim woman had a right to get maintenance under Section 125 of the Code and also held that Article 44 of the Constitution had remained a dead letter. To undo the above decision, the Muslim Women (Right to Protection on Divorce) Act, 1986 which

curtailed the right of a Muslim Woman for maintenance under Section 125 of the Court was enacted by the Indian Parliament.

Shah Bano Case: Case Study - In the late 1980s, an old and penurious woman,
Shah Bano had knocked on the courts for justice after she felt she was wronged in the way her husband divorced her. She demanded alimony from her husband, who had abandoned her for another woman. According to Muslim law, Shah Bano was entitled to three months' maintenance after over 40 years of marriage. Years later the Supreme Court heard the matter and upheld her right to maintenance. While doing so, the court also referred to the need to enact a uniform civil code. An open and shut case, it should seem, but for the Bench's reference to the need for enacting a Uniform Civil Code since after all it was part of the Directive Principles enshrined in the Constitution which the nation was duty-bound to implement -- in due course. This seemingly innocuous event was a crucial moment in the nation's history. It sparked off a huge protest among Muslim leaders who accused the judiciary of interfering in their personal laws.

Thereafter, in the case of Sarla Mudgal Vs. Union of India reported as All India Reporter 1995 SC 1531, the question which was raised was whether a Hindu husband married under Hindu law can, by embracing Islamic religion, solemnize a second marriage. The Supreme Court held that a Hindu marriage solemnized under Hindu Law can only be dissolved under The Hindu Marriage Act and conversion to Islam and marrying again would not by itself dissolve the Hindu marriage. Further, it was held that a second marriage solemnized after converting to Islam would be an offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. In this context, the views of Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh are pertinent: Where more than 80 percent of the citizens have already been brought under the codified personal law there is no justification whatsoever to keep in abeyance, any more, the introduction of the Uniform Civil Code for all the citizens in the territory of India. Thus, the Supreme Court reiterated the need for Parliament to frame a common civil Code which will help the cause of national integration by removing contradictions based on ideologies. The Directive Principle of enacting a uniform civil Code has

been urged by the Apex Court repeatedly in a number of decisions as a matter of urgency. Unfortunately, in a subsequent decision reported as Lily Thomas Vs Union of India, 2000(6)Supreme Court Cases 224, the Apex Court, dealing with the validity of a second marriage contracted by a Hindu husband after his conversion to Islam, clarified that the court had not issued any directions for the codification of a common civil code and that the judges constituting the different benches had only expressed their views in the facts and the circumstances of those cases. Even the lack of will to do so by the Indian government can be deciphered from the recent stand stated in the Indian press. It has been reported in the Asian Age dated August 5, 2006, by the Press Trust of India (the Official Government News Agency) that the Indian government does not intend to bring legislation to ensure a uniform civil code because it does not want to initiate changes in the personal laws of minority communities. However, this ought not to deter the efforts of the Supreme Court of India in issuing mandatory directions to the central government to bring a common civil Code applicable to all communities irrespective of their religion and practices in a Secular India. Hopefully, the Apex Court may review its findings in some other case and issue mandatory directions to the central government to bring a Common civil code applicable to all communities irrespective of their religion.

Secularism and The Uniform Civil Code:

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution resolves to constitute a Secular Democratic Republic. This means that there is no State religion and that the state shall not discriminate on the ground of religion. Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India as enforceable fundamental rights guarantee freedom of religion and freedom to manage religious affairs. At the same time Article 44 which is not enforceable in a Court of Law states that the state shall endeavour to secure a uniform civil code in India. How are they to be reconciled. What will be the ingredients of a uniform civil code. Since the personal laws of each religion contain separate ingredients, the uniform civil code will need to strike a balance between protection of fundamental rights and religious principles of different communities. Marriage, divorce, Succession, inheritance and maintenance can be matters of a

secular nature and law can regulate them. India needs a codified law which will cover all religions in relation to the personal laws of different communities. Critics of the uniform civil code think that the true principles of Muslim law remain eclipsed by its extensive alleged misreading over the years. It is suggested by Tahir Mahmood, an eminent scholar in his article in The Hindu dated July 30, 2006 titled, Muslim Personal Law : Clearing The Cobwebs that an Indian Code of Muslim Law based on an eclectic selection of principles from the various schools of Shariat is the ideal solution to all the contemporary problems of Muslim Law. In another report dated May 11, 2006 in The Hindu, it has been reported that the Supreme Court of India dismissed a public interest litigation petition challenging the legality of the customs of polygamy, talaq and divorce practiced by Muslims under personal laws. The plea for a direction to the Central Government to make Uniform Marriage Laws for all communities was rejected on the ground that it is for Parliament to change or amend the law. Thus, the debate is endless and the issue remains unresolved. To sum up, it can be concluded that for citizens belonging to different religions and denominations, it is imperative that for promotion of national unity and solidarity a unified code is an absolute necessity on which there can be no compromise. Different streams of religion have to merge to a common destination and some unified principles must emerge in the true spirit of Secularism. India needs a unified code of family laws under an umbrella of all its constituent religions. Whether it is the endeavour of the State, the mandate of the court or the Will of the people is an issue which only time will decide.

Judicial Activism in Family Laws: A Turning Point.

A series of decisions by the Supreme Court of India in the areas of family laws in the recent past has gone to show that the Apex Court is motivating a lot of positive and well meaning reforms which have become necessary over a period of time. Three recent decisions of the Apex Court can be cited in support of this proposition: In, In Re: Enforcement and Implementation of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961, reported as Judgments Today 2005(5) SC 71, the Apex Court directed the Indian central and state governments to implement all the interim directions issued by the Supreme Court earlier and take effective steps for framing rules and enforcing the provisions

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by devising measures to create honest, efficient and committed machinery for the purposes of the implementation of this Act. In Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India and others, reported as Judgements Today 2005(6) SC 266, the Apex Court, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, held that the object of Section 498A is prevention of dowry menace and to check cruelty and harassment of women. Therefore, the court concluded the provision does not offend the Constitution of India. In St. Theresas Tender loving Care Home Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported as Judgments Today 2005(9) SC11, the court held that the workings of the homes run by state governments for abandoned and destitute children and the process of offering them for adoption need to be seriously improved and the central and state governments would do well to look at these problems with the humanitarian approach and concern they deserve. However, the Supreme Court has also tested various aspects of personal laws on the touchstone of fundamental rights. In Gita Hariharan Vs Reserve Bank of India reported as 1999(2) Supreme Court Cases 228, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 6 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 to mean that the mother is also a natural guardian and irrespective of whether the father was unfit or not, the mother should also be given equal rights as a natural guardian. In John Vallamattom vs. Union of India, All India Reporter 2003 SC 2902, Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act was struck down as unconstitutional, as it was held to be discriminatory against Christians in imposing unreasonable restrictions on the donation of their property for religious or charitable purposes by Will. In Danial Latifi Vs Union of India reported as 2001(7) Supreme Court Cases 740, a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court gave a categorical finding that in view of their interpretation of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the provisions of the Act were not in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which fundamental rights guarantee equality of law and right to life and personal liberty. The views of the Indian Apex Court on the issue of registration of marriages, inter caste marriages, child marriages, Dowry Prohibition Act, irretrievable breakdown of

marriage, uniform civil code and a secular approach have already been referred to earlier. A legislative setup which is slow to respond to societal changes and a proactive judiciary which is keen to motivate reforms in law is therefore clearly visible on the Indian horizon. Even in matters affecting environment, pollution and health of people, the role of the judiciary in India has been very constructive. The vibrant, dynamic and open jurisprudential system in India is amenable and flexible to changing needs of people. We could therefore well have reform in family law with the views of the court even if there is opposition from religious communities in respect of personal laws. If a uniform civil Code does not come as a result of legislation, decisions of courts will always suggest reforms to improve the plight of children and women who are affected the most. The Indian judiciary indeed deserves to be hailed in this regard for its yeoman efforts in this regard, or the welfare of Indians

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
is a unique international convention in that it was based on the need for special formulation that would assert, protect and promote womens human rights. The Convention expressly states that discrimination against women is socially and culturally constructed and encompasses public and private spheres, thereby bringing within its fold the domain of the family. An important feature of the CEDAW has been to fix responsibility upon the state for actions of private actors, particularly when such actions constitute a systematic pattern of violations within the community. This is because genderdiscrimination has socio-cultural underpinnings and is practiced by private actors. The States reluctance to intervene in such patterns of discrimination would amount to a condonation of the violations. The CEDAW has contributed significantly in setting new normative standards for human rights law and practice but it is regrettable that CEDAW has the distinction of being the most reserved human rights convention today, i.e. state parties have modified or waived obligations in relation to certain parts of the treaty by means of reservation clauses.

India too has ratified CEDAW with a declaration to limit its obligations relating to changing the discriminatory cultural practices within the community and the family. Hence, with regard to articles 5(a)1 and 16(1)2 of the Convention, the India declares that it shall abide by and ensure these provisions in conformity with its policy of noninterference in the personal affairs of any Community without its initiative and consent. Indias reservation is an unqualified exemption from state interference into customary practices and it also fails to specify a time frame. This reservation can only be construed as being inconsistent with the objectives and purpose of the Convention and an indication of the utter lack of political will on part of the Indian state, even in face of international duties and obligations, to bring about an egalitarian, uniform civil law in the country.

Position of UCC under Indian Constitution: a critical review.

Under the Preamble to the Constitution of India the people of India have solemnly resolved to secure all its citizens, besides, social, economic and political justice; equality of status and opportunity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. Article 14 (as a fundamental right) guarantees equality before the laws and equal protection of laws. Under the Article 15 it is guaranteed that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion, caste, sex etc. Article 13 provides that all laws in force in the territory of India before the commencement of the constitution, so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency be void. And Article
1

Article 5(a) reads: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures: To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women; 2 Article 16(1) reads: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women: (a) The same right to enter into marriage; (b) The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent; (c) The same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution; (d) The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount; (e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights; (f) The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount; (g) The same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation; (h) The same rights for both spouses in respect of the ownership, acquisition, management, administration, enjoyment and disposition of property, whether free of charge or for a valuable consideration.

44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy provides that the State shall endeavour or secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of the country. In view of the above provisions the questions arise as to whether a Mohammedan woman married or divorced who is a citizen of India gets equality of status and dignity, treated equally before the laws and not discriminated only on the ground of sex, under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and whether the same is not inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and not void under Article 13 of the Constitution? If so, how long should the country wait to enact a Uniform Civil Code to secure and protect all that and the unity and the integrity of the nation?

CONCLUSION:
A net analysis of the various propositions and viewpoints discussed above drives home the ideal solution that for Indians there is needed one indigenous Indian law applicable to all its communities which coexist democratically. Analytically speaking, the answers to the social issues discussed above are within the system. Codification of a unified civil code may be the ultimate solution. Other measures will only tide over time. Judicial verdicts will keep the momentum going. Accommodating personal laws of all religions under such a code is an uphill task. It may take time. The legislature will ultimately have to perform this onerous duty of drafting the Code. Religion will have to keep pace with law. Unity in India exists in its diversity. Times have moved ahead, but personal laws have not kept pace. The courts in India perform a Herculean task in carving out solutions on a case to case basis. The executive and the legislature arms of the government in India however now need to contribute to provide the much needed solutions. In the e-age today, the path to progress must be chartered with harmony at home. As the largest democracy in the world, India has an opportunity to be a role model in various aspects of family laws. Maybe, with further changes and amendments in some aspects, a better role model to emulate may emerge in the Indian sub continent.