The Supreme Court brought back memories of the historic Shah Bano Begum case of 1985 when it ruled on Wednesday that a Muslim woman can request maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The Shah Bano Case of 1985
The Constitution Bench unanimously decided in the Mohd Ahmed Khan versus Shah Bano Begum case that Muslim women were also entitled to maintenance. The contentious question of Muslim women receiving maintenance under the secular provision of Section 125 of the CrPC came to the forefront of political discourse in 1985.
The 1986 Act
Beyond the ruling, there was debate about whether Muslim husbands are actually required to provide maintenance to their divorced wives, especially beyond the three-month ‘iddat’ term. In an effort to “clarify” the situation, the federal government under Rajiv Gandhi at the time introduced the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986, which aimed to outline the rights of such a woman throughout the divorce process.
The 2001 Danial Latifi Case
In the 2001 Danial Latifi case, the Supreme Court maintained the constitutionality of the 1986 Act. In addition to interpreting personal law, the historic Shah Bano case ruling focused on the necessity of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to address gender equality.It laid the groundwork for Muslim women to have equal rights regarding marriage and divorce. Having been awarded a ‘talaq’ (divorce), Bano’s ex-husband had first applied to the court for support. Beginning in a district court, the legal fight came to a memorable conclusion in 1985 when the five-judge Constitution bench of the highest court rendered its decision.
Recent Supreme Court Decision
A bench of justices B. V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih noted in their decision on Wednesday that the Shah Bano ruling had addressed maintenance in great detail, specifically the duty of a Muslim husband to support his divorced wife who is unable to support herself, either after seeking or receiving a divorce.
Importance of Section 125 of CrPC
“The bench (in the Shah Bano case) unanimously went on to hold that the obligation of such a husband would not be affected by the existence of any personal law in the said regard, and the independent remedy for seeking maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC 1973 is always available,” the court stated.
The Shah Bano ruling also said that Section 125 of the CrPC shall take precedence over any potential conflicts between the secular and personal law rules regarding support claims made by a divorced woman.
The bench stated that the 1985 decision clarified the wife’s entitlement to refuse to cohabitate with her husband in the event that he enters into another marriage, much less three or four.
