Divorce muslim women entitled to claim maintenance under sec 125 CRPC

/ Uncategorized / By

Legal Brief: Divorced Muslim Women entitled to claim Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, 1978

Prepared By: Adv. Saksham Mathur

 

Case Name: Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.

Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2842 of 2024

Decided on: July 10, 2024

Facts of the Case:

The Appellant (Mohd. Abdul Samad) and Respondent No. 2 (wife) were married on November 15, 2012. Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home on April 9, 2016. Respondent No. 2 filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the Appellant under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On September 25, 2017, the Appellant pronounced a triple talaq. Subsequently, he obtained an ex-parte divorce certificate on September 28, 2017. The Appellant offered INR 15,000/- for the iddat period, but Respondent No. 2 refused and filed a petition for interim maintenance under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC 1973). The Family Court granted interim maintenance of INR 20,000/-, which was reduced to INR 10,000/- by the High Court of Telangana.

Issues:

  • Whether a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Crpc1973, considering the existence of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (1986 Act).
  • Whether fulfilling a divorced Muslim woman’s maintenance rights under the 1986 Act would preclude her from filing an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Crpc1973, especially considering the statutory protection against double payment by the husband under Section 127(3)(b) of the CrPC 1973.

Arguments Advanced:

  • By Appellant
  • The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 offers a more beneficial and comprehensive remedy for divorced Muslim women than Section 125 of the Crpc 1973. Thus, recourse for a divorced Muslim woman lies exclusively under the 1986 Act.
  • The 1986 Act, being a special law, overrides the general provisions of the Crpc 1973.
  • Sections 3 and 4 of the 1986 Act, commencing with a non-obstante clause, supersede any other statute in the same field.
  • The transitional provision of Section 7 of the 1986 Act emphasizes its prevalence and clarity regarding the rights and procedures for divorced Muslim women’s maintenance.

 

 

  • By Respondent (Amicus Curiae)
  • The 1986 Act, as a personal law remedy, does not expressly or implicitly bar the remedy available under the secular provision of Section 125 of CrPC 1973 for maintenance.
  • The objects and purposes of Section 125 of CrPC 1973 and Section 3 of the 1986 Act are distinct.
  • The non-obstante clause in Section 3 of the 1986 Act does not explicitly remove the rights under Section 125 of CrPC 1973.
  • Denying recourse to Section 125 of CrPC 1973 would infringe upon the fundamental rights of divorced Muslim women, guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Legal Analysis:

The Supreme Court examined the legislative history and judicial pronouncements on the interpretation of Section 125 of CrPC 1973 and Section 3 of the 1986 Act.

  • Section 125 of CrPC 1973: This provision, aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution, provides a secular remedy of maintenance to a wife, including a divorced wife, irrespective of the parties’ personal laws.
  • The 1986 Act: Enacted after the Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum case, this Act codifies the rights of divorced Muslim women, including their entitlement to maintenance from their former husbands.
  • Harmonious Construction: The Court highlighted that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to invoke either the secular provision of Section 125 of CrPC 1973 or the personal law remedy under the 1986 Act. The non-obstante clause in Section 3 of the 1986 Act does not extinguish the right to seek maintenance under the CrPC 1973.
  • Constitutional Validity: Denying recourse to Section 125 of CrPC 1973 would violate Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, as it would discriminate against divorced Muslim women based on religion.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Telangana’s order, affirming that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC 1973 despite the existence of the 1986 Act. The Court further held:

  • Co-existence of Rights: Both provisions offer distinct remedies, and a divorced Muslim woman can choose to pursue either or both.
  • No Double Benefit: However, availing benefits under one law might impact the quantum of maintenance granted under the other to avoid double benefit.
  • Reasonable Substitute: If a husband has provided a “reasonable substitute” under personal or customary laws, the Court can adjust the maintenance awarded under Section 125 of CrPC 1973.

Conclusion:

This landmark judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the maintenance rights of divorced Muslim women in India. The Supreme Court’s interpretation ensures that the women have equal access to justice and are not deprived of their right to maintenance based on their religion. They have the autonomy to choose the remedy that best suits their circumstances, upholding their dignity and right to a life with dignity.