Author: Krisha Sandip Shah, Kes Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College, Mumbai
To the Point
Indian law includes personal laws such as Muslim law, Hindu Marriage Act, etc. On the other side there are uniform and secular laws such as CRPC, BNSS, etc. These laws can sometimes lead to clashes and give rise to different landmark judgements. Today we look into a very famous landmark judgement named Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum. This case shows how Muslim women were denied maintenance on basis of personal laws.
Maintenance of women when one is not capable enough to survive is not only important but a right which one and every woman should get. This landmark judgement raises various issues like are Muslim women entitled to get maintenance even after iddat period? Are rights of them are violated? Is this fair enough to a woman who is unable to survive on her own?
The key objective of this case is to protect rights and destitute of women by financially supporting them. To check and resolve the conflict between the personal laws and uniform laws. The main, highlighting, important objective was to promote gender equality and promote social justice and fairness to each and every citizen of India.
We look into this landmark judgement closely and understand the importance of the judgement held in favour of Shah Bano Begum by our Apex Honourable Supreme Court.
Abstract
Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum (1985) is a famous and important landmark judgement in constitutional and family law.
The facts of the case are such: Adv. Ahmed Khan and Shah Bano Begum were married in the year 1932 and had five children. In the year 1975 Ahmed Khan breakdown the marriage and he kicked Shah Bano out of her matrimonial house and provided no maintenance. This was clear brutal behaviour with Shah Bano as she was just a homemaker. In the year 1978 Shah Bano filed a case against Ahmed Khan and claimed maintenance under section 125 of Crpc, seeking 500 per month as it was difficult for her to survive. Ahmed khan gave her triple talaq in the year 1978. Adv Ahmed Khan argued in his defence that he paid Mehr and now he was not entitled to pay any maintenance to her according to Muslim Personal Law. The lower courts like Magistrate court ordered Rs 25 per month and Honourable High court ordered Rs 179.20 per month. Unjust prevailed until she appealed the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The main question was are Muslim women not entitled to maintenance? Are their rights violated?
Use of Legal Jargon
The aim and objective of this litigation was to check the enforceability of section 125 of the, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It was to adjudicate whether the Muslim women are entitled to get maintenance even after iddat period. The court further said to construct section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in sense of social justice. To solve the clashes and problems between the personal and municipal law, in order to give first preference to statutory law rather than religious personal law in case of maintenance. Articles in Indian Constitution such as article 14, article 15, article 21 should be taken into consideration and look into the matter that these rights are protected and not violated.
The Proof
There are many evidences relevant to this landmark judgement.
First of all, it has judicial proof, section 125 of CRPC clearly states maintenance of wife who is unable to maintain herself. In this case just Mehr was not enough as Shah Bano Begum was just a homemaker and could not survive on her own, hence section 125 of CRPC is a great proof for this judgement.
After this judgement Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986 was established in order to protect rights of women.
Constitutional proofs such as fundamental rights, right to equality, right to life are violated of Shah Bano Begum in this particular case.
Conclusively the proof that statute law being secular and providing maintenance to all women including Muslim women beyond iddat period is mentioned.
Therefore, in this case Shah Bano begum was entitled to maintenance provided by different proofs.
Case Laws
Bai Tahira vs Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia (1979)
In this case it was held that the Mehr alone cannot escape the husband from paying maintenance to his wife until she becomes financially stable.
Fuzlunbi vs K. Khader Valli (1980)
In this case the court held that a Muslim woman who is wife is a ‘wife’ under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Hence the maintenance which is provided to wife under this act also applies to all Muslim wife uniformly.
Iqbal Bano vs. State of U.P
All petitions under section 125 of CRPC are valid and maintainable after the divorce.
Only talaq cannot deny maintenance to Muslim women.
Daniel Latifi vs. Union of India
This case upheld the constitutional validity.
Conclusion
The judgement Adv. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum changed the sights, situations and brought tremendously social just for Muslim women in India by the Honourable Supreme Court. The Apex court favoured Shah Bano Begum in regards of maintenance and validating the constitutionality of article 14 that is right to equality, article 21 right to life, etc. This judgement by Supreme court honoured the dignity and pride of Muslims women by prioritising the statutory uniform laws that is section 125 of CRPC rather that any religious personal law.
The enactment of Protection of Rights on Divorce Act brought the drastic change in life of divorced women. This is the proof that maintenance of any women when unstable or financially weak is necessary with no excuses.
FAQS
What is section 125 of CRPC, 1973?
It empowers Judicial Magistrate of First Class to order a person having sufficient means to provide maintenance to; his wife even divorced, his legitimate or illegitimate child, major child if unable to survive due to disability, father or mother if they cannot maintain themselves.
Is section 125 applicable to all religions?
Yes, it applies to all religions.
Does Muslim personal law override section 125 CrPC?
No, in case of conflict section 125 prevails as it is uniform, statutory, secular and applies to all religion.
What is the key holding in Shah Bano case?
The Supreme court held that she was entitled to maintenance even after iddat period if she is unable to maintain herself.
Is section 125 CrPC a civil remedy or criminal?
Section 125 is a quasi-civil, summary remedy which upholds the idea of social justice.
