The Supreme Court has definitively stated that all religious tribunals operating as Sharia courts, whether called "Kazi courts," "Darul Qaza," or "Kaziayat courts," possess no legal authority within India's judicial framework, and their rulings cannot be legally enforced unless voluntarily accepted by all parties and consistent with national law.

This clarification came from Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah while deciding an appeal from a Muslim woman contesting an Allahabad High Court order that had upheld a family court's refusal to grant her maintenance payments.

In its judgment, the Court referenced the landmark 2014 case of Vishwa Lochan Madan vs Union of India, which established that neither Sharia courts nor their religious edicts (fatwas) are recognized within the Indian legal system. The bench emphasized that such religious institutions lack judicial authority, and their pronouncements hold no legal weight unless willingly accepted by the involved parties and not in conflict with statutory provisions.

The case centered on a family court's denial of maintenance to the petitioner based on allegations that she was responsible for marital problems. This conclusion relied primarily on a "settlement deed" presented before a Bhopal-based "Kazi court" in Madhya Pradesh.

The Supreme Court sharply criticized this reasoning, asserting that courts cannot base legal entitlement determinations on declarations from non-judicial religious bodies. The judgment noted, "Such declarations, even if voluntarily accepted, are at best applicable between the consenting parties and cannot bind third parties."

The petitioner had married according to Islamic customs on September 24, 2002—a second marriage for both spouses. In 2005, her husband sought divorce through a "Kazi court," which dismissed the case after reaching a settlement. In 2008, he initiated another divorce proceeding in a "Darul Qaza" court, while the wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code that same year. By 2009, the Sharia body permitted the divorce, resulting in a formal talaqnama (divorce certificate).

The family court ruled against the woman, claiming her husband had not abandoned her and attributing the marriage breakdown to her behavior. The court also reasoned that as a second marriage, dowry demands were unlikely—logic the Supreme Court dismissed as speculative and legally unsound.

"The family court's observation that there was no likelihood of dowry demand because it was a second marriage is baseless and contrary to legal reasoning," the Supreme Court declared. It further clarified that the purported settlement document from the Kazi court could not justify denying maintenance.

The Court ordered the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 4,000 to the petitioner, retroactive to the date of her original family court petition.