 So can you please explain the viewers the division and the reasoning between Justice Lalit, Justice Nariman and Justice Kurian? Because the reasoning, it was a very divided courtroom that day. The division is very, very strong. It's very pronounced. I've already told you what Justice Nariman and Justice Lalit have said. Let me tell you what Justice Kehar and Justice Nazir say. They say the exact opposite. They say that notwithstanding the fact that the Sharia Application Act of 1929 is there yet personal law is personal law and protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. What is totally unacceptable about this judgment is that they step ahead and they say that although the Muslim Personal Law Board argues that Triple Tilak is sinful, yet we will protect it under Article 25. So this boggles the imagination. Now we also know that the right to religion is subject to public order, health and morality. And the other shocking thing about their judgment is they say that there is no violation of public order, there's no violation of health and there's no violation of morality. If Triple Tilak is not immoral in the constitutional sense, then I don't know what is immoral and I'm doubtful that their judgment will stand the test of history. The government indicated that they will come out with a legislation on the issue. What are your views on that? What is the way forward? Let me put the facts in order. It was the attorney general who made a statement in court that if this court strikes down all forms of Tilak, we will introduce a law. Now my argument in court all along was Triple Tilak is unconstitutional because it is unilateral and no person can be unilaterally divorced by their husband. Simple as that. The second argument I made is we do not recognize extrajudicial divorces. Any extrajudicial divorce is unconstitutional. My status as a wife cannot be destroyed by somebody else. It has to go through a judicial process. The third argument I made was that we do not in this country recognize sharia courts because we are a secular country and it is no answer for the Muslim personal law board to say we will set up Darul Khazaz. Darul Khazaz are unconstitutional because we are a secular nation. If we wanted Darul Khazaz we could have set up sharia courts like you have in Pakistan and Bangladesh. They are an Islamic republic. We are not a Hindu republic and therefore every divorce has to go through the regular court system. So if you ask me whether there is a need for a law my answer to that would be all the three forms of divorce in Muslim law are unilateral. The only difference between talak and the other two talaks is the other through the process of reconciliation. But what if there is no reconciliation? The husband still has the right to pronounce unilateral talak and therefore all three forms are completely unconstitutional. So my answer to that would be you need a gender neutral law for divorce which will apply equally to men and women. You already have a law which applies to Muslim women. They can get a divorce by going through a regular civil court on grounds of cruelty, on grounds of desertion, on various other grounds. Now if a Muslim woman has to go to court to get a divorce I see no reason why a Muslim man also should not use the same channel. And please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to suggest that the process of divorce should be made cumbersome. But what I am saying is no person has a right to alter my status which means my civil rights, which means my right to reside in my matrimonial home, my right to maintenance, my right to comfort, my right to access to the children, my right to access to the collective resources cannot be unilaterally taken away without due process of law. So I feel there is a need for a law on divorce for Muslims which is gender neutral. Thank you so much. Thank you so much Ms. Jessing for the time.