Justice Joseph stated that triple talaq was against the tenets of the Quran, violated the Sharia law and was not an integral part of the Islam religion.
They also said that it was "manifestly arbitrary" to allow only men to 'break down marriage whimsically and capriciously'.
India's largest Islamic body, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, said its legal committee would study the ruling.
Ms Bano, who suffered a nervous breakdown after her divorce, said it was a "historic occasion" for Muslim women.
"I have felt the pain when family breaks".
If one goes by the history, the Congress' present stand has surprised many. More than twenty Muslim countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh have outlawed triple talaq.
There have been cases in which Muslim men in India have divorced their wives by issuing the so-called triple talaq by letter, telephone and, increasingly, by text message, WhatsApp and Skype.
Hoping that others will take a cue from the judiciary, he said,"They would walk on the same progressive path and will ensure that personal laws in India continue to remain progressive and also such aberrations in those laws which infringe constitutional guarantees can now be rectified".
In a ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court of India ruled as unconstitutional the divorce procedure known as "triple talaq", in which a Muslim man can instantly leave his wife by saying the word "talaq" - which means divorce - three times.
India's Muslim Law Board had told the court that while they considered the practice wrong, they opposed any court intervention and asked that the matter be left to the community to tackle. She made the decision to do so following her own experience with "instant divorce". "This was turned into a media campaign to malign the image of Muslims".
He claimed that Muslim women were being "exploited" in the name of triple Talaq and "felt insecure throughout their life".
"All laws, including modern laws, have flaws and are misused". "This can not be seen as an isolated decision, it has opened the other doors for change in our discriminatory system and may affect the continuation of Article 35A and may pave way for common civil code".
The judges deliberated for three months on the case before reaching their verdict, which was agreed by three of the five on the panel. The Chief Justice of India JS Khehar gave his judgement while other judges pronounced their verdicts too.