The court, however, said the verdict rendered in pending petition will govern the outcome of the present plea as well.
"We are of the view that the issues agitated in the instant petition are already pending consideration before this court.
"It is, therefore, not necessary for us to entertain another writ petition on the same cause, which is already before this Court," a bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and D Y Chandrachud said.
While disposing of the plea filed by one Gurudas Mitra, the bench said, "It is needless to mention that the determination rendered in the pending petitions will govern the outcome of the present petition as well."
Senior advocate Soumya Chakraborty has said that all the three forms talaq (Ahsan Talaq, Hasan Talaq and Talaq-ulBiddat) were arbitrary, capricious and in violation of fundamental rights of Muslim women.
In a written submission, he has said that 'Khula' and 'Mubarat' are the only two traditionally acknowledged Muslim modes of dissolution of marriage at the instance of the woman.
"Apart from the spiritual tenets ingrained in the holy Quran, there being a wide variety of interpretations and divergent opinions among different scholars or schools of thought in the Muslim community, nothing is universally fundamental in the day-to-day practice of Islam," he has said.
Mr Chakraborty has said that none of the three forms of talaq was being uniformly followed nor were they universally acknowledged and, therefore, could not be regarded as fundamental tenets of Islam.
"All the three practices of talaq, along with those of nikah-halala, polygamy, are violative of the fundamental rights of Muslim women guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution," he said.
A five-judge Constitution bench had reserved its verdict on May 18 on the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the practices of triple talaq among Muslims, after six-days of marathon hearings.
Parties including the Centre, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, the All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board and others had made their submissions on for and against the practice.