Supreme Court upholds the right of divorced Muslim women to claim maintenance

Source: The post Supreme Court upholds the right of divorced Muslim women to claim maintenance has been created, based on the article “SC judgment on the Muslim women’s right to maintenance: The battle in court, from 1980 to 2024” published in “Indian Express” on 15th July 2024

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-governance- mechanisms, laws, institutions and bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections.

Context: The article discusses the Supreme Court judgment in Mohd Abdul Samad vs The State of Telangana. The judgment upholds the right of divorced Muslim women to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, despite the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986, resolving longstanding legal confusion.

For detailed information on SC verdict on right to maintenance of Muslim Women read this article here

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd Abdul Samad vs The State of Telangana can be summarized as follows:

1. Upheld Rights: The Court upheld the divorced Muslim woman’s right to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, asserting that this right remains unaffected by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986.
2. Rejection of Contrary Arguments: It rejected the husband’s argument that after the enactment of the 1986 Act, maintenance could only be claimed under this Act.
3. Clarification of Law: The judgment resolved ambiguity stemming from varied High Court decisions, providing clarity that Section 125 still applies to divorced Muslim women.
4. Secular Provision: This decision reinforces the applicability of Section 125 as a universal, secular provision for maintenance, ensuring all women have equal access to this legal remedy.

What Was the Existing Precedent?

The existing precedent was established by the Supreme Court in the 2001 case Danial Latifi and Another vs Union of India:

1. Background: Danial Latifi was Shah Bano’s lawyer in her case, Mohd Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum, where the Supreme Court initially upheld her right to maintenance, leading to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
2. Ruling: The Court ruled that the 1986 Act is constitutionally valid and interpreted Section 3(a) to secure divorced Muslim women’s financial future.
3. Specifics: It required the husband to provide maintenance during the iddat period and plan for the wife’s future needs within that period, ensuring her long-term financial stability.
4. Impact: This interpretation upheld the simultaneous applicability of Section 125 of the CrPC, confirming that the new Act did not negate these rights.

What is the significance of Section 125 of the CrPC?

1. Section 125 is a socially beneficial provision that applies to all women, regardless of religion. It ensures that women who cannot maintain themselves receive maintenance from their husbands.
2. Justice V R Krishnaiyer, in Fuzlunbi vs K Khader Vali and Another (1980), emphasized that this section enforces maintenance as a secular obligation for social welfare, benefiting the entire community of women.
3. The Supreme Court clarified that denying maintenance rights under Section 125 to divorced Muslim women would violate their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
4. The Court’s ruling ensures that divorced Muslim women have the same maintenance rights as other women in India.

Question for practice:

Examine the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd Abdul Samad vs The State of Telangana regarding maintenance rights for divorced Muslim women under Section 125 of the CrPC.