New Delhi: The Institute of Objective Studies (IOS) organised a one-day international conference on “Pressing and Unanswered Issues under Family Laws (Comprehension and Resolution)” in hybrid mode in New Delhi on September 15, 2026.

 

The conference began with the chairman of the IOS, Prof. M. Afzal Wani, presiding over the proceedings. He also recited a portion of Surah Al-Rahman from the Holy Qur’an.

 

In his welcome address, the secretary-general of the institute, Mohammad Alam, briefly outlined the existing family laws relating to marriage, divorce, succession and matrimonial disputes, along with the mechanisms available for resolving them. He expressed the hope that the deliberations would prove fruitful for both academics and law students. He also recalled the institute’s journey, which began in 1986, and its continued efforts to promote research on socio-economic issues, particularly those concerning minorities and other weaker sections of society.

 

Introducing the theme, Prof. Wani remarked, “FAMILY is the outcome of the call of the child: Father And Mother I Love You” There is family – father and mother, and I love both of them. It becomes a family.” It is an abode of love where parents and children live with affection and peaceful relationship. But there are issues which need solutions. This conference will help in understanding the issues, and  hopefully pave the way for more such programmes in the future.

 

 

Inaugurating the conference, retired Allahabad High Court judge Justice Zaki Ullah Khan said that, during his judicial career, he had dealt with several cases concerning family matters. He had also served as a family court judge in Agra and Dehradun. Expressing happiness at being among the distinguished gathering, he highlighted various constitutional and legal dimensions of family disputes.

 

Referring to Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, he explained that it empowered the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary to ensure complete justice in a case or matter pending before it. Such orders were enforceable throughout the country. He observed that the provision had been invoked in matrimonial disputes, particularly in cases involving the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, to facilitate immediate divorce.

 

He also referred to emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, which could help improve the functioning of courts. Describing family law as the foundation of other branches of law, he said that it protected the dignity of individuals. He noted that Quranic injunctions continued to command respect and that India's family law framework presented a complex legal landscape. The Supreme Court had decided several cases in the light of Shariah principles, he added.

 

Justice Khan emphasised the need to maintain uniformity in the application of law while respecting constitutional values. He stressed that a woman's consent was central to marriage, adding that marriage could not be treated as a one-sided arrangement. The Constitution did not discriminate against women, and both men and women enjoyed equal rights. The principles of equality, liberty and fraternity were enshrined in the Constitution. He also drew attention to cases in which couples faced harassment from their families. Economic justice within the family, he maintained, was an important instrument of social justice.

 

Justice Khan pointed out that the law recognised the entitlement of parents to maintenance from their children, particularly their sons. Economic justice within the family was therefore of paramount importance. Referring to divorce and maintenance, he observed that the Supreme Court had acknowledged the absence of a uniform law governing divorce. He cited a maintenance case in which the husband was found to be a millionaire, raising questions about the financial interests and welfare of the dependent wife and child. He also expressed concern over child marriage, which, he said, exposed children to exploitation. The inadequacy of legal provisions and the lack of public awareness about the consequences of child marriage were matters requiring serious attention. Advocating the resolution of family disputes through conciliation, he said that the country did not necessarily need more laws but rather good laws. He urged people to become familiar with the legal provisions governing family matters.

 

Delivering the keynote address, Dr. Shivani Goswami, Professor of Law at Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi, said that family laws involved numerous complex issues. She discussed gender disparities in different personal law frameworks, particularly under Hindu marriage and succession laws. Referring to the Hindu Marriage Act, she highlighted provisions and practices that, in her view, reflected male supremacy. She also raised questions about the position of fathers as natural guardians of children and pointed to several anomalies in Hindu succession law. Although the law had undergone five amendments, she said, many issues remained unresolved. She also referred to problems arising under Parsi and Muslim personal laws. Observing that men, too, sometimes faced difficulties in obtaining legal remedies, she mentioned cases in which men had reportedly died by suicide. She argued that the law should be gender-neutral and should recognise that women could also commit offences against men. She also referred to concerns relating to excessive sexual behaviour.

 

Prof. Kahkashan Danyal, Dean, Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, referred to the Shah Bano case in the context of protecting the rights of Muslim women. She observed that, in several High Court verdicts, decisions had favoured waqf boards rather than women, leaving many women without adequate financial assistance.

 

She briefly discussed Section 52 of the Hindu Succession Act, referring to the position of succession to property inherited from the father and mother before 1946. She also raised questions concerning the distinction between self-acquired and inherited property and referred to certain recommendations made by the Law Commission. Emphasising the need for effective enforcement, she called for an appropriate institutional forum to address such issues and promote legal awareness.

 

Prof. Sanjula Thanvi, Dean, Faculty of Law, Rajasthan University, Jaipur, spoke on maintenance for Muslim women, Shariah law and constitutional justice. She maintained that maintenance was fundamentally a question of dignity rather than merely financial support. It involved access to basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter. She observed that a Muslim man with sufficient means was required to provide maintenance to his wife. However, questions remained regarding whether such maintenance was limited to the period of Iddat or could continue beyond it. She stressed that harmonisation was the way forward.

 

Prof. Arvinder A. Ansari, former Professor of Sociology at Jamia Millia Islamia, examined family law from a sociological perspective. Discussing triple talaq, she explained how it operated within a wider social framework shaped by prejudice and patriarchy. She raised questions about the nature of justice available to women and emphasised the importance of legal pluralism. She argued that Muslim personal law and customary law needed to be understood in their social context. Referring to the sociology of punishment, she discussed the prohibition of triple talaq and called for a wider debate on gender justice.

 

She observed that Muslim women had become subjects of competing social and political claims and that their legal position needed greater attention. Referring to the history of the Shah Bano case, she called for a comprehensive discussion on the relationship between Islam and the Constitution. She also emphasised the need to protect women against domestic violence and address marital insecurity. Calling for an appropriate family law regime, she urged that Muslim women be recognised fully as citizens entitled to dignity and economic security.

 

Dr. Anita Rao expressed concern over the implications of technological developments, particularly medical technologies involving surrogacy. She said that surrogacy challenged traditional notions of family and parenthood, raising questions about who should determine the legal parentage of a child and who should assume responsibility for the child's welfare. She emphasised the need for appropriate rules and regulations to safeguard children's interests. The rights and welfare of the child, she maintained, should remain central to the regulation of reproductive technologies. Such technologies should be guided by a humanistic approach.

 

Prof. Shahista Salim Khan of Inamdar Law College, Nashik, described family law as one of the most sensitive areas of legal discourse, involving fundamental principles of justice and equality. In this connection, she referred to the case of Md. Abdussamad vs. State of Telangana. Discussing reproductive technologies, she said that their regulation should protect human dignity and ensure equality without discrimination.

 

Dr. Nuzhat Parveen Khan, former Dean, Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, observed that family law was an old and evolving subject, particularly in view of the emergence of new forms of relationships. She emphasised that law should protect the institution of the family while responding to changing social realities. She identified child marriage, children's rights, law enforcement and public awareness as issues requiring serious attention. Every dimension of law and human experience, she said, needed to be taken into account. She also called for a discussion on personal autonomy and societal expectations. There was no single solution to the problems confronting family law, and any reform had to be preceded by a proper understanding of the existing legal framework.

 

 

The first session was chaired by Prof. Afkar Ahmad of Kolkata.

 

Dr. Puja Paul Srivastava of Chandigarh University, Mohali, was the first speaker. Outlining the existing family law framework, she observed that different communities in India were governed by different personal laws. These included the religious personal laws of Hindus and Muslims, secular family laws, customary laws and common civil laws.

 

She referred to the Special Marriage Act, which provided a secular framework for marriage irrespective of religious identity. She observed that India did not have a single family law applicable to all communities. Family laws, she argued, should address issues of gender justice and individual liberty.

 

Dr. Tanzeem Fatima, the next speaker, advocated the interdisciplinary teaching of family laws across different religious traditions. She suggested that university departments of Arabic, Sanskrit and Hindi should incorporate the study of law into their curricula. She also underlined the need to compile and study Vedic and Shariah laws, Fiqh, Muslim personal law and other family law provisions.

 

Dr. Kumard Malviya presented a critical appraisal of Hindu family laws relating to succession to self-acquired property, maintenance and divorce. She pointed to the possibility of concealing material facts under the Hindu Marriage Act and called for appropriate safeguards to ensure informed consent before marriage. She also discussed questions of guardianship and what she described as unnatural guardianship. Referring to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, she emphasised the principles of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. She maintained that women should be recognised as protectors of children. However, she observed that Uttar Pradesh revenue law continued to distinguish between men and women, giving preference to male members in certain matters of Hindu family law. She called for automatic succession rights for women.

 

Dr. Alisha Khatoon of Jamia Millia Islamia emphasised the need for a woman's consent to marriage under different family law systems. She observed that Muslim personal law recognised marriage as a consensual civil contract. Tracing the evolution of matrimonial law, she referred to the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act in 1955 and discussed the implications of coerced consent under Muslim personal law. She also highlighted the differences between Christian and Parsi matrimonial frameworks and the secular arrangement provided by the Special Marriage Act. She maintained that customary practices should not override constitutional principles.

 

Dr. Ghazal Sharif argued that dignity and personal liberty included the freedom to choose one's life partner, even against the wishes of one's family. Marriage, she said, represented an important personal choice. She examined why couples sometimes preferred court marriages despite opposition from their parents and referred to the Special Marriage Act as an important legal safeguard. Such marriages, she observed, provided individuals with privacy and enhanced their social and emotional autonomy. She insisted that the law must protect adults exercising their right to choose their partners.

 

Dr. Sakshi Gupta described marriage as an important social institution in India and referred to the various statutory provisions governing it. She said that these laws should maintain a balance between the sanctity of marriage and individual rights. She also advocated consensual dissolution of marriage and emphasised the importance of consent in matrimonial relationships.

 

Dr. Rahab Khan, and Mohammad Siddique presented a paper on the “Importance of Nikah-Nama as a Marriage Related Document under Muslim Law: What should be the Role of the Bride in Nikah Process”. 

 

Dr. Arif Wadood spoke on the distribution of property and stressed the need for transformative constitutionalism. He observed that inheritance law was not merely about the distribution of property but also reflected the power structures, social values and dignity of individuals within society.

 

Dr. Swati Pandita discussed the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, describing it as an Indian law governing the solemnisation and legal recognition of marriages abroad where at least one party was an Indian citizen. She observed that India was not a signatory to any international agreement governing marriages with foreign nationals. She also highlighted questions of jurisdiction and referred to approximately 3,000 complaints concerning marriages with foreign nationals. According to her, most of these complaints had been reported from Maharashtra and Punjab. She called for legislation to protect women against exploitation in such marriages.

 

Prof. Afkar Ahmad, who also addressed the session, observed that family laws constituted a collection of different legal provisions. He said that they should continue to evolve in keeping with changing social relationships.

 

Session II

 

The second session was chaired by Prof. Saleena Basheer of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.

 

The first speaker, Advocate Apoorva Thakur, discussed what she described as a culture of endless and unrealistic comparisons in matters concerning family relationships. Referring to Section 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she observed that the objectives of legislation should be supported by sound methodology and thorough literature review.

 

She said that the existing legal framework was under strain, as reflected in certain decisions of the Karnataka and Telangana High Courts. She also raised concerns about dating applications and their functioning in relation to the law. Emphasising the importance of marital stability, she called for a more considered approach to family law.

 

Syed Shahid Rashid of Hyderabad followed him. He observed that the Hindu Marriage Act contained provisions relating to consent and suggested that suitable amendments should also be made to the Succession Act. 

 

Dr. Amrendra Kumar of the University of Delhi discussed the operation of family law among tribal communities. He observed that family law was often influenced by social prejudices and pointed out that India's tribal population comprised nearly 10 crore people belonging to diverse communities. He noted that the Hindu Marriage Act did not automatically apply to tribal communities. Questions of inheritance and the applicability of personal laws therefore required careful consideration. He emphasised that the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act to tribal communities depended, among other things, on whether they followed Hindu traditions.

 

Shivangi Arora spoke on the dissolution of marriage through a decree of divorce. Referring to Article 142 of the Constitution, she explained the Supreme Court's power to pass orders necessary to ensure complete justice in pending cases. She observed that judicial activism had provided some relief in matrimonial disputes, particularly through the recognition of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. She argued that divorce should also be approached from the perspective of compassion and mutual consent, while taking societal values into account.

 

Pargya Bhadauria discussed the regulation of live-in relationships under the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). She maintained that equality, protection, personal autonomy and privacy should be recognised in the legal framework. She identified the transition from judicial recognition to statutory protection as a major challenge. She suggested that the UCC implemented in Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh should be re-evaluated. Referring particularly to the Uttarakhand model, she observed that it transformed private relationships into matters requiring official registration. She cautioned that the implementation of a UCC should not transgress constitutional boundaries.

 

Rachit Sharma made a presentation on Judicial Legislation versus Parliamentary Inaction: Should Irretrievable Breakdown Be Left to Article 142 or Codified by Statute and raised the question of how the irretrievable breakdown of marriage should be codified in law. He observed that Article 142 had, in certain cases, enabled the Supreme Court to address gaps in the existing statutory framework.

 

Dr. Syed Iqbal Ahmad of the Indian Law School, National University, New Delhi, emphasised that diversity did not necessarily imply discrimination. He observed that India was a diverse country with different laws governing marriage, divorce, inheritance and child protection. However, he pointed out that tribal communities continued to remain outside several aspects of the existing family law framework. Referring to the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code, he discussed its provisions concerning marriage registration and the powers of registrars to issue marriage certificates. He also referred to the proposed institutional arrangements for implementing the Code and the use of a common language in its administration.

 

Dr. Asma Rizvi, the final speaker of the session, observed that the protection of women was an ethical responsibility supported by statutory provisions. She discussed dignity as a constitutional guarantee, referring to Articles 21, 41 and 246. She also examined the relationship between personal laws and criminal procedure, maintenance, and the welfare of parents and senior citizens. Referring to leading judicial decisions, she observed that changing family structures had brought new dimensions to the concepts of equality and dignity. She discussed the way forward beyond statutory provisions and argued that the constitutional guarantee of dignity had several interconnected dimensions.

 

Open Discussion

 

An open discussion followed the formal sessions.

 

Advocate Syed Mujibur Rahman, who had been practicing law in southern area of Kashmir for the past 30 years, stressed the need to address constitutional principles and concerns relating to the family. He emphasised that public awareness of legal provisions was essential, particularly as a large number of alimony-related cases continued to come before the courts.

 

Prof. Haseena Hashia, vice-chairperson of the IOS, recalled the case of a woman in Delhi who had been suffering from mental illness and had sought maintenance through a petition before the Delhi High Court. Her husband, who had two children, was reportedly unable to pay alimony. She observed that such cases called for a compassionate approach and suggested that divorced women should receive financial support under Shariah law. She also expressed the view that a divorced woman who had an independent source of income should not be entitled to compensation. She noted that courts generally had to decide such matters in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. She suggested that, where appropriate, the parties could be encouraged to resolve their disputes through the relevant Shariah-based mechanisms.

 

Prof. Hashia urged the community to assume responsibility for providing financial support to divorced women and their children. She also suggested that such women should be made aware of and encouraged to avail themselves of various government welfare schemes.

 

Valedictory Session

 

Presiding over the valedictory session, Prof. Mohammad Tariq, Professor of Law at Aligarh Muslim University, observed that India had a distinctive and complex family law framework.

 

“India is a sub-continent and has an old civilisation as compared to Europe,” he remarked, highlighting the country's unique socio-legal challenges.

 

He said that the Constitution guaranteed every citizen the right to freedom of religion, along with other fundamental rights. Referring to Article 24, he noted that it prohibited the employment of children below the age of 14 in factories, mines and other hazardous occupations. Article 25, he said, guaranteed freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.

 

He also referred to Article 44, which formed part of the Directive Principles of State Policy and was non-justiciable. Referring to Article 40, he emphasised the constitutional directive to organise village panchayats and empower them to function as institutions of self-government. He also mentioned Article 49, which required the State to protect monuments and objects of artistic or historic interest declared to be of national importance against disfigurement, destruction, removal or export. He called for a broader perspective while examining constitutional provisions and their implications for society.

 

Prof. Tariq observed that personal laws had a significant influence on other areas of law. However, the rights to privacy and personal liberty were equally important. In this connection, he made special mention of Article 14, which guaranteed equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, and Article 15, which prohibited discrimination against citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

 

He noted that the codification of Muslim personal law remained incomplete. Referring to the Shah Bano and Saira Bano cases, he discussed the wider debate surrounding personal laws and constitutional rights. He also referred to Uttarakhand as the first state to implement a Uniform Civil Code, expressing concern that certain provisions could impinge upon the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. He concluded by emphasising that laws should strike a balance between individual rights and the pluralistic character of Indian society.

 

In his concluding remarks, Prof. M. Afzal Wani, chairman of the Institute of Objective Studies, observed that the institution of the family was facing several challenges. He noted that states were establishing family courts to resolve disputes and stressed that the ongoing process of social transformation needed to be understood in its proper perspective. He said that society had to distinguish between relationships that should receive legal recognition and those that might not. He also emphasised the responsibility to care for persons with disabilities who depended on others for their well-being.

 

Referring to compulsory charitable contributions such as Zakat and Sadaqat, he called for financial assistance to be extended to those in need. He also stressed the proper implementation of the Consumer Protection Act to safeguard consumers' interests.

 

Prof. Wani maintained that family laws deserved greater attention and suggested that judges should receive specialised training in dispute resolution so that conflicts could be minimised. He emphasised the need to harmonise family laws and proposed that personality development courses be introduced at the school level. He also called for greater harmony in interpersonal and family relationships.

 

On the occasion, the House unanimously adopted a set of resolutions.

 

Prof. Haseena Hashia extended the vote of thanks.