Why in News?
The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana [2024] that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973, against her former husband. This decision upholds the principle that personal laws cannot limit a remedy available under secular law.
Evolution of the Law of Maintenance in India
1. Section 125 of the CrPC:
- Provides for maintenance of destitute wives, children, and parents.
- A person with sufficient means must provide a monthly allowance for
maintenance if they refuse to maintain their wife. - The term “wife” includes a divorced woman who has not remarried.
- This section does not specify the religion of the woman.
2. Shah Bano Verdict (1985):
- The Supreme Court upheld the right of a Muslim woman to seek maintenance
from her divorced husband under Section 125 of the CrPC. - The verdict faced backlash from certain sections of the Muslim community,
leading to legislative changes.
3. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986:
- Enacted to nullify the Shah Bano verdict.
- Guarantees payment of maintenance to a divorced Muslim woman by her former
husband only during the period of iddat (typically three months). - A woman can approach a first-class magistrate for maintenance if she has not
remarried after the iddat period.
4. Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001):
- The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act.
- Extended the right of a Muslim woman to receive maintenance until she
remarries. - Limited the period of maintenance to the completion of iddat.
5. Shabana Bano Case (2009):
- Reaffirmed that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
- Maintenance is applicable even after the iddat period if the woman has not remarried.
- Supreme Court Verdict in Mohd. Abdul Samad Case
Background:
- A Muslim man challenged a Telangana High Court direction to pay ₹10,000 interim maintenance to his former wife.
- He argued that maintenance claims should be governed by the 1986 Act, not Section 125 of the CrPC.
Verdict:
- The Supreme Court ruled that Section 125 of the CrPC is a measure of social justice to protect women and children.
- Section 125 ensures a constitutional commitment under Article 15(3) of the Constitution for a dignified life for women.
- Claims under Section 125 are maintainable irrespective of personal laws.
- The 1986 Act cannot dilute the relief available under Section 125 of the CrPC, as it would be regressive and contrary to
constitutional provisions.
Significance of the Verdict:
- Harmonious Interpretation: The ruling allows Muslim women the choice to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC
or the 1986 Act. - Discouraging Illegal Divorces: Muslim women divorced through illegal methods such as triple talaq are entitled to
maintenance under Section 125. Triple talaq was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2017 and criminalized
under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. - This landmark ruling reinforces the rights of divorced Muslim women to seek maintenance under secular laws, ensuring their
financial and social security.