New Delhi, May 11: The Supreme Court today wondered whether the judiciary could intervene on a matter like the instant triple talaq when lawmakers were keeping their hands off it, coming up with the poser as a five-judge bench began hearing a raft of petitions challenging the practice.

The constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, made it clear it would not examine the legality of polygamy, another issue the central government and some of the petitioners had urged the court to decide on.

Justice Khehar and Justice R.F. Nariman made that clear at the very outset, indicating that the issue was not connected with the triple talaq. "Polygamy is out," the bench said.

The government had last month told the court that practices like the triple talaq and polygamy didn't have religious sanction. Today, the vacation bench wondered what prevented Parliament from coming up with a law prohibiting the triple talaq that allows a man to divorce his wife by pronouncing the word talaq thrice.

"If Parliament does not show its concern, can the court do it?" Justice Kurian Joseph, another judge on the bench, asked additional solicitor-general Tushar Mehta and lawyers opposed to the practice permitted by Muslim personal law.

Mehta did not answer the court's query as attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi is expected to argue the NDA government's stand on Monday. Rohatgi, the government's top law officer, is currently abroad.

Earlier, too, on calls to scrap the penal code's Section 377, which criminalises gay sex, the court had taunted the government for approaching it when Parliament itself had the power to repeal the law. The matter was subsequently referred to a five-judge constitution bench, which is yet to be set up.

At the hearing today, the bench, which also included Justices U.U. Lalit and Abdul Nazeer, wanted to know what could be the remedy available to a Muslim man who wants a divorce if the triple talaq is eventually struck down as unconstitutional.

"According to you all divorces are unconstitutional and, if we finally hold it in your favour, then what is the remedy available for the man if he wants to go for divorce?" Justice Lalit asked senior advocate Indira Jaising who was appearing for one of the petitioners who have opposed the practice.

The senior advocate said the man could always approach a matrimonial court.

But the bench was not impressed with the argument as, unlike the Hindu Marriage Act, Special Marriage Act and the Christian Marriage Act, which provide for approaching a court, Sharia law does not give a man the right to approach a court for divorce.

Jaising said Sharia law could not be allowed to operate in India as the country, because of its secular ethos, did not have separate courts for each religion.

The senior counsel said she was opposed to the triple talaq as it was an "extra-judicial and unilateral form of divorce" that left no scope for any maintenance or alimony for the wife.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, said the court should not interfere with the personal laws of any community.

Another senior advocate, Salman Khurshid, who has filed an intervention application in his personal capacity, said Islam frowns upon divorce and men are allowed this option only on reasonable grounds.

Chief Justice Khehar said the bench would deal with the issue of the instant triple talaq, which bypasses certain safeguards enshrined in the Sharia.

The Sharia makes it mandatory for arbitrators to attempt reconciliation and settle all issues, such as maintenance and return of dowry, before a divorce is formalised. But many Muslim women have alleged that the practice of the triple talaq had degenerated to such an extent over the years that men were now divorcing their wives over the phone, by post and even through text messages.

Senior advocate Amar Singh Chaddha, appearing for an aggrieved woman, said Muslim women had to approach a civil court for divorce on select grounds but a man could unilaterally divorce his spouse by uttering the word talaq thrice without any valid reason.

He said the practice violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (right not to be discriminated against) and 21 (right to life).

One petitioner, advocate Farah Faiz, said the talaq-e-bidat (instantaneous talaq) was not a form of divorce recognised in the Quran.

"The divorce procedure, as defined in Islamic law, is spread over three months and entails arbitration and reconciliation after talaq is pronounced by the husband," she told the court.