In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India reiterated that a Muslim woman is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) even if they were divorced under religious personal law.

The Present Case (Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana,2024)

• Petitioner challenged the Family Court Order: Petitioner Mohd Abdul Samad challenged a 2017 family court order that directed him to pay Rs 20,000 per month in maintenance to his former wife.
• High Court Decision: The Telangana High Court, upon appeal, refused to overturn the family court’s order.
• Supreme Court Appeal: The petitioner challenged the Telangana High Court’s direction in the Supreme Court.
• Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner argued that the maintenance claim should be governed by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (1986 Act), rather than Section 125 CrPC.
  • The petitioner contended that the provisions of the 1986 Act, being a special law, would prevail over Section 125 of the CrPC. 

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Supreme Court Verdict

• Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and  Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986: The ruling reiterated that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC exists “in addition” to the provisions for maintenance under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (MWPRD Act), not “against” it.
• No Bar on Divorced Muslim Women: Parliament did not impose any bar on divorced Muslim women from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC when enacting the 1986 Act.

• • Danial Latifi & Anr v. Union of India: This position was first taken in the landmark 2001 ruling in Danial Latifi & Anr v. Union of India.
• Choice with the Muslim Women: The Court opined that the choice lies with the Muslim woman to apply for maintenance either under Section 125 of the CrPC or the 1986 Act. 
  • If she is unable to provide for herself, she can seek remedy under Section 125. 
  • Alternatively, if she is financially independent, she could seek maintenance under the 1986 Act till the expiry of the iddat period. A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to seek recourse to either or both the provisions. The option lies with the women.
• Muslim women divorced through triple talaq entitled to relief: Justice Nagarathna clarified that Muslim women who have been divorced through illegal methods such as triple talaq are also entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. 
  • The practice of ‘triple talaq’ was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2017 and later criminalised under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
• Social Justice Measure: The Bench acknowledged that Section 125 CrPC was introduced as a measure of social justice to protect women and children.
  • The Supreme Court pointed out that the provision reflects Article 15(3) Commitment: Article 15(3) is a clause in the Constitution of India that empowers the State to make special provisions for women and children.
    • Article 39(e) of the Indian Constitution: Obligation on the State under Article 39(e) to ensure “that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength”.
    • Ensuring Dignity: It aims to ensure a life of dignity for women at all stages of their lives.
• Secular Nature of Relief: The claim under Section 125 CrPC is maintainable irrespective of the personal laws applicable to the parties.
• Faith Neutral: This provision applies irrespective of the faith a woman belongs to.
• Critical Source of Support: The remedy of maintenance is crucial for supporting destitute, deserted, and deprived women.
• Recognition of Women’s Sacrifices: Justice Nagarathna acknowledged that married women often forgo employment opportunities to nurture their families, raise children, and care for the elderly. 

Check Out UPSC NCERT Textbooks From PW Store

Evolution Of The Law On Maintenance In India

• Shah Bano Case (1985): 

  • Background: In 1978, Shah Bano Begum filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and her five children from her husband, Mohammed Ahmad Khan.
  • Divorce: Khan divorced Shah Bano using ‘irrevocable talaq’ later that year, invoking Muslim personal law that obligated maintenance only during the iddat period.
  • Legal Proceedings: The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted Shah Bano’s plea in 1980, prompting an appeal that reached the Supreme Court.
  • Supreme Court Decision: A five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the High Court’s decision. 
    • Then Chief Justice of India Y V Chandrachud held that provisions such as Section 125 CrPC “cut across the barriers of religion”, and “whether the spouses are Hindus or Muslims, Christians or Parsis, pagans or heathens, is wholly irrelevant”. 
    • The court also held that the divorced wife was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 even after the iddat period “if she is unable to maintain herself”.

• The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 1986, Enactment:

  • Overturn of the Shah Bano Verdict: The Indian Parliament enacted the MWPRD Act of 1986, which effectively overturned the Shah Bano verdict. 
  • Obligation to Pay Maintenance: Under the Act, the obligation to pay maintenance after the iddat period was placed on the relatives or children of the divorced wife and, in their absence, on the State Wakf Board.

• Danial Latifi v. Union Of India (2001):

  • Challenge to MWPRD Act: After the enactment of the MWPRD Act, Shah Bano’s lawyer, Danial Latifi Nafess Ahmad Siddiqui, challenged its constitutionality before the Supreme Court.
  • Arguments: They argued that Section 125 CrPC protects women of all religions from destitution.
    • Violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution: The MWPRD Act discriminates against Muslim women, violating their right to equality (Article 14) and right to life with dignity (Article 21).
  • Government’s Defence: The Centre argued that personal law is a legitimate basis for discrimination and does not violate the right to equality.
  • Muslim Personal Law Board’s Position: The All India Muslim Personal Law Board contended that the MWPRD Act takes care of Muslim women and prevents “vagrancy” while being in tune with Muslim personal law, which only places an obligation for maintenance on the husband during the iddat period.
  • Supreme Court Judgement: 
    • Creative Interpretation: The five-judge Constitution Bench creatively interpreted Section 3(a) of the MWPRD Act, which mandates provision of maintenance within the iddat period.
    • Extended Responsibility: The court ruled that a husband must anticipate and prepare for the future needs of his divorced wife within the iddat period.
    • Maintenance Beyond Iddat: The court held that maintenance obligations extend beyond the iddat period, potentially for the entirety of the divorced wife’s life unless she remarries, and upheld the constitutionality of the MWPRD Act.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes