FACTS
- In this case, a deserted wife approached the family court in Telangana for maintenance under Section 125, and the court awarded her Rs 20,000 as monthly maintenance.
- Subsequently, her husband divorced her and contested her right to claim maintenance under Section 125, arguing that her rights were now governed by the MWA.
- The Telangana High Court rejected the husband’s arguments but reduced the maintenance amount to Rs 10,000 per month. The husband then appealed to the Supreme Court.
SC Verdict:
- On July 10, a bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih upheld the wife’s right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
- The Court ruled that this right is not nullified by the enactment of the MWA, emphasising the socially beneficial nature of Section 125.
This judgement has thus put to rest the prevailing controversy and reinforced the maintenance rights of divorced Muslim women.
ISSUES RAISED
Are the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) relating to married women’s maintenance rights applicable to Muslims?
This question, basically erroneous, has been raising its head ever since these were initially incorporated in the old CrPC of 1898 (Section 488). The CrPC is a non-religious law of general application the provisions of which cannot be selectively used for various religious groups of citizens. Great judges of India have been clarifying this since the early years of the post-Constitution era.
Once again it came up before the apex court this year, and once again it has answered it in the affirmative in the Abdul Samad case decided on July 10.
Some others Cases to Maintenance Rights for Divorced Muslim Women in India:
- The Danial Latifi Case (2001):
- In this case, the constitutional validity of the MWA was challenged.
- The petitioners argued that the MWA violated the fundamental rights of Muslim women by limiting their maintenance rights.
- A five-judge Constitution Bench of the SC examined these arguments and provided a landmark judgement that balanced the provisions of the MWA with the constitutional mandate of equality and non-discrimination.
- The SC upheld the constitutional validity of the MWA, affirming that it did not violate the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and 21 (Right to Life) of the Indian Constitution.
- The Court ruled that MWA should not be limited to the iddat period but must encompass the future needs of the divorced wife.
- Sabra Shamim vs Maqsood Ansari (2004):
- The Allahabad HC reiterated that the MWA does not take away the right of a divorced Muslim woman to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
- It emphasised that the provisions of the CrPC are available to all women, irrespective of their religion.
- Iqbal Bano vs State of UP (2007):
- The SC held that a divorced Muslim woman has the option to either proceed under the provisions of the MWA or under Section 125 of the CrPC, thereby reaffirming the concurrent applicability of both legal frameworks.
- Shamim Bano vs Asraf Khan (2014):
- The SC once again upheld the right of a divorced Muslim woman to claim maintenance under Section 125, stating that the beneficial provisions of the CrPC are available to all women, including those governed by personal laws.