Shah Bano Begum DATE OF SC JUDGMENT- 23rd April, 1985.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was passed in the Parliament on May 19, 1986.
The locks of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya were opened on February 1, 1986.
This decision allowed Hindu devotees to worship at the site, which had been locked since 1949. Both events occurred during the tenure of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
Muslim Women: సెక్షన్ 125 కింద ముస్లిం మహిళలూ భరణానికి అర్హులే
ABN , Publish Date - Jul 11 , 2024 | 04:48 AM
భర్త నుంచి భరణం కోరే హక్కును భార్యకు ఇచ్చే సీఆర్పీసీ సెక్షన్ 125 దేశంలోని వివాహితలు అందరికీ మతాతీతంగా వర్తిస్తుందని తేల్చిచెప్పింది.
Muslim Women: సెక్షన్ 125 కింద ముస్లిం మహిళలూ భరణానికి అర్హులే
సీఆర్పీసీలోని ఆ సెక్షన్ మతాలకు అతీతమైంది
భరణం దయతో ఇచ్చేది కాదు.. అది వివాహిత మహిళల హక్కు
ఆ సెక్షన్ మతాలకు అతీతమైంది
భరణం.. ‘దయ’ కాదు.. హక్కు
సుప్రీంకోర్టు చరిత్రాత్మక తీర్పు
ముస్లిం మహిళల భరణానికి సంబంధించి సుప్రీంకోర్టు చరిత్రాత్మక తీర్పును వెలువరించింది! భర్త నుంచి భరణం కోరే హక్కును భార్యకు కల్పించే సీఆర్పీసీ సెక్షన్ 125 మతంతో సంబంధం లేకుండా వివాహితలందరికీ వర్తిస్తుందని.. ట్రిపుల్ తలాఖ్ ద్వారా చట్టవిరుద్ధంగా విడాకులు పొందిన ముస్లిం మహిళలు ఈ సెక్షన్ కింద భరణం కోరవచ్చని స్పష్టం చేసింది!! ‘‘భరణం.. వివాహితల హక్కు. దాతృత్వం కాదు’’ అని తేల్చిచెప్పింది. ఈ సెక్షన్ కింద భరణం కోరే హక్కు ముస్లిం మహిళలకు కూడా ఉందంటూ 1985లో సుప్రీంకోర్టు తీర్పు ఇవ్వగా.. కొందరు సంప్రదాయవాదుల ఒత్తిళ్లకు లొంగిపోయి 1986లో రాజీవ్గాంధీ సర్కారు ఆ తీర్పునకు భిన్నంగా ముస్లిం మహిళల భరణానికి సంబంధించి ఒక చట్టం తెచ్చిన సంగతి తెలిసిందే. ఆ చట్టం ప్రకారం మాత్రమే ముస్లిం మహిళలు భరణం కోరాలనే వాదనను సుప్రీంకోర్టు తన తాజా తీర్పులో తోసిపుచ్చింది. సీఆర్పీసీలోని లౌకికమైన, మతపరంగా తటస్థమైన సెక్షన్ 125ను ఈ కేసులో ఆ చట్టం ప్రభావితం చేయలేదని తేటతెల్లం చేసింది.
న్యూఢిల్లీ, జూలై 10 (ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి): భర్త నుంచి భరణం కోరే హక్కును భార్యకు ఇచ్చే సీఆర్పీసీ సెక్షన్ 125 దేశంలోని వివాహితలు అందరికీ మతాతీతంగా వర్తిస్తుందని తేల్చిచెప్పింది. 2019నాటి ‘ముస్లిం విమెన్ (ప్రొటెక్షన్ ఆఫ్ రైట్స్ ఆన్ మ్యారేజ్) యాక్ట్కు విరుద్ధంగా.. ముమ్మారు తలాఖ్ చెప్పడం ద్వారా భార్యకు విడాకులు ఇస్తే.. భార్య ఆ చట్టంతోపాటు, ఈ సెక్షన్ ద్వారా కూడా భరణం కోరవచ్చని స్పష్టం చేసింది. తెలంగాణకు చెందిన మహ్మద్ అబ్దుల్ సమద్ అనే వ్యక్తి దాఖలు చేసిన అప్పీలుపై విచారణ జరిపి ఈ చరిత్రాత్మక తీర్పు వెలువరించింది. అబ్దుల్ సమద్ తన భార్యకు 2017లో ముస్లిం పర్సనల్ లా ప్రకారం విడాకులు ఇచ్చారు. దీంతో ఆమె.. సీఆర్పీసీ సెక్షన్ 125 కింద భర్తతో తనకు భరణం ఇప్పించాలని కోరుతూ ఫ్యామిలీ కోర్టులో పిటిషన్ వేశారు. పూర్వాపరాలను పరిశీలించిన ఫ్యామిలీ కోర్టు.. నెలకు రూ.20 వేలు భరణం కింద చెల్లించాలని సమద్ను ఆదేశించింది.
ABN ఛానల్ ఫాలో అవ్వండి
ఆ తీర్పును సమద్ తెలంగాణ హైకోర్టులో సవాల్ చేశారు. ముస్లిం పర్సనల్ చట్టం ప్రకారం.. తాను భరణం ఇవ్వాల్సిన అవసరం లేదని, ఆ విషయాన్ని ఫ్యామిలీ కోర్టు పట్టించుకోలేదని పిటిషన్లో పేర్కొన్నారు. అయితే, ఫ్యామిలీ కోర్టు తీర్పును రద్దు చేయటానికి హైకోర్టు నిరాకరించింది. నెలకు చెల్లించాల్సిన భరణాన్ని మాత్రం రూ.10 వేలకు తగ్గించింది. బాధితురాలు పిటిషన్ వేసినప్పటి నుంచి భరణం చెల్లించాలని ఆదేశించింది. దీనిని సమద్ సుప్రీంకోర్టులో సవాల్ చేశారు. ఆయన తరఫున సీనియర్ న్యాయవాది వసీం ఖాద్రీ వాదనలను వినిపించారు. విడాకులు తీసుకున్న ముస్లిం మహిళలకు ‘ముస్లిం మహిళల విడాకుల హక్కుల పరిరక్షణ చట్టం, 1986’ వర్తిస్తుందిగానీ, సీఆర్పీసీ సెక్షన్ 125 వర్తించదని.. భరణం చెల్లించాల్సిన అవసరం లేదని వాదించారు. ముస్లిం మహిళలకు సీఆర్పీసీ సెక్షన్ 125 కన్నా, 1986 నాటి చట్టమే అధిక ప్రయోజనం కలిగిస్తుందన్నారు. కాగా, ఈ కేసులో గౌరవ్ అగర్వాల్ అనే న్యాయవాదిని అమికస్ క్యూరీ(కోర్టు సహాయకుడిగా)గా న్యాయస్థానం నియమించింది.
వాదనలను విన్న సుప్రీంకోర్టు తీర్పును ఈ ఏడాది ఫిబ్రవరి 19వ తేదీన రిజర్వు చేసింది. తాజాగా బుధవారం జస్టిస్ బీవీ నాగరత్న, జస్టిస్ అగస్టీన్ జార్జ్ మాసి్హతో కూడిన ధర్మాసనం తీర్పును వెలువరించింది. ‘ముస్లిం మహిళల విడాకుల హక్కుల పరిరక్షణ చట్టం, 1986’, సీఆర్పీసీ 125 సెక్షన్.. ఈ రెండింటిలో 125 సెక్షనే ఈ కేసులో వర్తిస్తుందని ధర్మాసనం తన తీర్పులో స్పష్టం చేసింది. ‘‘మతాల సరిహద్దులకు అతీతంగా వివాహిత మహిళలకు ఆర్థిక భద్రత కల్పించే, లింగ సమానత్వాన్ని బలోపేతం చేసే హక్కు భరణం’’ అని స్పష్టం చేసింది. అయితే.. ముస్లిం మహిళలు భరణం కోసం 1986లో రాజీవ్గాంధీ సర్కారు తెచ్చిన ‘ముస్లిం మహిళల విడాకుల హక్కుల పరిరక్షణ చట్టం, 1986’ను, సీఆర్పీసీ 125 సెక్షన్ను.. రెండింటినీ ఉపయోగించుకోవచ్చని, ఇవి పరస్పర ఆధారితాలేగానీ పోటీ కావని తెలిపింది. ఈ మేరకు హైకోర్టు తీర్పును సవాల్ చేస్తూ సమద్ దాఖలు చేసిన పిటిషన్ను కొట్టివేస్తున్నట్లు ప్రకటించింది. న్యాయమూర్తులిద్దరూ వేర్వేరుగా తీర్పులు వెలువరించినప్పటికీ ఒకే విధమైన తీర్పు ఇచ్చారు.
స్వాగతించిన బీజేపీ..
భరణానికి సంబంధించి సీఆర్పీసీ సెక్షన్ 125 మతాలకు అతీతంగా వివాహిత మహిళలందరికీ వర్తిస్తుందంటూ సుప్రీంకోర్టు ఇచ్చిన తీర్పును బీజేపీ స్వాగతించింది. 1985లో ఇదే రీతిలో సుప్రీంకోర్టు ఇచ్చిన తీర్పును అతిక్రమిస్తూ 1986లో రాజీవ్గాంధీ సర్కారు చట్టాన్ని తెచ్చిందని బీజేపీ ఎంపీ సుధాన్షు త్రివేదీ దుయ్యబట్టారు. షరియాకు, ఇస్లామిక్ చట్టాలకు ప్రాధాన్యం ఇస్తూ చేసిన ఆ చట్టం రాజ్యాంగానికే అతిపెద్ద ప్రమాదాల్లో ఒకటని ఆయన ఆందోళన వెలిబుచ్చారు. ‘‘కాంగ్రెస్ పార్టీ ఎప్పుడు అధికారంలోకి వచ్చినా.. అప్పుడు రాజ్యాంగం ప్రమాదంలో పడుతుంది. అప్పట్లో రాజీవ్గాంధీ సర్కారు రాజ్యాంగం కంటే షరియాకే ప్రాధాన్యం ఇచ్చింది. కాంగ్రెస్ హయాంలో అణచివేతకు గురైన రాజ్యాంగ ప్రతిష్ఠను సుప్రీం తాజా తీర్పు పునరుద్ధరించింది. రాజ్యాంగానికి పొంచి ఉన్న అతిపెద్ద ముప్పుల్లో ఒకదానికి ముగింపు పలికింది’’ అని ఆయన వ్యాఖ్యానించారు. కాగా.. ఈ తీర్పుతో ఉమ్మడి పౌరస్మృతి అంశం మరోసారి తెరపైకి వచ్చింది. మళ్లీ అధికారంలోకి వస్తే ఉమ్మడి పౌర స్మృతిని అమల్లోకి తెస్తామని బీజేపీ 2024 ఎన్నికలకు ముందు తన మేనిఫెస్టోలో ప్రకటించింది.
కుటుంబం కోసం భార్యల త్యాగం
జస్టిస్ బీవీ నాగరత్న తన తీర్పులో.. భార్య ఆర్థికంగా ఎవరి మీదా ఆధారపడకుండా ఉండేలా చూసుకోవాల్సిన బాధ్యత భర్తదేనని హితవు పలికారు. ‘‘సొంతంగా ఆదాయం అంటూ లేని భార్యకు భర్త తన ఆర్థిక వనరులను అందుబాటులో ఉంచాలి. కుటుంబ అవసరాలతోపాటు ఆమె వ్యక్తిగత అవసరాలు తీరేలా చర్యలు తీసుకోవాలి. ఈ చైతన్యాన్ని భర్త కలిగి ఉండాలి. ఈ విధంగా ఆర్థికంగా సమృద్ధిపరిచినప్పుడే కుటుంబంలో భార్య స్థానం ఎవరి మీదా ఆధారపడే పరిస్థితి లేకుండా సుస్థిరంగా ఉంటుంది. ఈ విధమైన చైతన్యాన్ని కలిగి ఉండి.. తన ఏటీఎం కార్డును ఇవ్వటం ద్వారా, బ్యాంకులో ఖాతాను ఇద్దరి పేరు మీద తీసుకోవటం ద్వారా భార్యను ఆర్థికంగా ఆత్మవిశ్వాసంతో ఉంచేలా వ్యవహరిస్తున్న భర్తలను అభినందించాలి’’ అని పేర్కొన్నారు. ఆర్థికంగా భర్త మీదే ఆధారపడే భార్యకు ఆర్థికపరమైన ఒత్తిడి లేకుండా చూడటానికే భరణం అని స్పష్టం చేశారు. విడాకులు తీసుకున్న వారేగాక వివాహిత మహిళలందరికీ ఈ అవకాశం రాజ్యాంగం కల్పించిందన్నారు.
Updated Date - Jul 11 , 2024 | 04:48 AM
Who influenced Rajiv Gandhi to promulgate Muslim Women diverse Rights Protection Act 1986
ముస్లిం మహిళల విడాకుల హక్కుల పరిరక్షణ చట్టం, 1986’
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986
This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986
Parliament of India
Long title
An Act to protect the right of Muslim women who have been divorced by, or have obtained divorce from, their husbands and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Citation Act No. 25 of 1986
Enacted by Parliament of India
Status: In force
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act was an act passed by the Parliament of India in 1986 to protect the rights of Muslim women who have been divorced from their husband and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act was passed by the Rajiv Gandhi government, with its absolute majority, to nullify the decision in the Shah Bano case,[1][2][3] and diluted the secular judgement of the Supreme Court.
It is administered by any magistrate of the first class exercising jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As per the Act, a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable and fair provision and maintenance from her former husband, and this should be paid within the period of iddat.
According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of this Act, when a Muslim divorced woman is unable to support herself after the iddat period that she must observe after the death of her spouse or after a divorce, during which she may not marry another man, the magistrate is empowered to make an order for the payment of maintenance by her relatives who would be entitled to inherit her property on her death according to Muslim Law. But when a divorced woman has no such relatives, and does not have the means to pay the maintenance, the magistrate would order the State Waqf Board to pay the maintenance. The liability of husband to pay the maintenance was thus restricted to the period of the iddah only.[4][5]
Personal laws
High Courts have interpreted "just and fair provision" that a woman is entitled to during her iddat period very broadly to include amounts worth lakhs (hundreds of thousands) of rupees. More recently, the Supreme Court in Danial Latifi v. Union of India read the Act with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, which prevent discrimination on the basis of sex, and held that the intention of the framers could not have been to deprive Muslim women of their rights. Further, the Supreme Court construed the statutory provision in such a manner that it does not fall foul of Articles 14 and 15.
The provision in question is Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which states that "a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddah period by her former husband".[6] The Court held this provision means that reasonable and fair provision and maintenance is not limited for the iddah period (as evidenced by the use of word "within" and not "for"). It extends for the entire life of the divorced wife until she remarries.[7] In Shabana Bano v Imran Khan, the Supreme Court held that a Muslim divorced woman who has no means to maintain herself is entitled to get maintenance from her former husband even after the period of iddah and she can claim the same under S.125 CrPC.[8][9]
Divorced women are entitled to maintenance from their former husband not only for the iddat period but also to reasonable and fair provisions for future maintenance. S.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act has to be given under the liberal interpretation to help divorced women. K. Zunaideen v. Ameena Begum (1998) 1 ctc 566.[10]
Notes
The Act is declaratory & retrospective in its operation. Even if the wife is divorced prior to the commencement of the Act, her former husband is liable to provide reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to her. Hyder Khan v. Mehrunnisa(1993)1 APLJ 82 DNC (KER)[11]
Who really influenced Rajiv Gandhi to act against Shah Bano judgment?
Rasheed Kidwai
RASHEED KIDWAI
24 July, 2018 11:01 am IST
11
File photo of Rajiv Gandhi | Sharad Saxena/The India Today Group/Getty Images
File photo of Rajiv Gandhi | Sharad Saxena/The India Today Group/Getty Images
Follow Us :
google new follow
whatsapp follow
Text Size: A- A+
Both the Hindu right and liberals blame Rajiv Gandhi for the Shah Bano flip-flop, accusing him of indulging in minority appeasement.
Contrary to popular belief, it was not Rajiv Gandhi who fielded his minister Ziaur Rahman Ansari to challenge the Supreme Court judgment in the 1985-86 Shah Bano case. For too long, Rajiv has been pilloried by Indians over his role in surrendering to Muslim conservatives during the Shah Bano episode.
But a new book by Ansari’s son says it was the other way around.
In an upcoming book titled Wings of Destiny: Ziaur Rahman Ansari – A life ( Highbrow Scribes Publications, 2018 ), Ansari’s Canada-based son Fasihur Rahman claims that it was actually his father, driven by religious zeal and armed with a resignation letter, who had prevailed upon Rajiv to overturn the apex court’s verdict.
Ansari informed Rajiv that he will challenge the apex court’s verdict in Mohammad Ahmad Khan vs Shah Bano Begum, delivered by the five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justices Ranganath Misra, D.A. Desai, O. Chinnappa Reddy and E.S. Venkataramiah on 23 April 1985.
Fasihur, a trained environmental scientist and a fellow at the University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, Canada, writes in the book that there has been a “preconceived notion” dominant till date that it was Rajiv or the Congress Party who had emboldened Ansari to speak against the judgment.
Both the Hindu right and liberals blame Rajiv for the Shah Bano flip-flop, accusing him of indulging in minority appeasement and giving in to orthodox Muslim clergy that was represented by Ansari and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). This stand on Shah Bano overshadowed his other achievements such as ushering the computer age in India, and the science and technology missions.
After a year of debate, Rajiv Gandhi government brought The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 to overturn the judgment of the Supreme Court following pressure from Muslims, including Ulamas, who said that the judgment was in conflict with sharia.
In the book, Fasihur quotes The Telegraph, Calcutta from back then: “The Congress (I) had decided to field another minister, Mr. Z.R. Ansari, to contradict his (Arif Mohammad Khan)assertion on the floor of the House.” He also cites The Times of India editorial stating: “It is clear beyond doubt that Mr. Gandhi gave Mr. Ansari the go ahead signal. In plain terms, Mr. Ansari too was not acting at his own initiative.”
According to Fasihur, his father was even prepared to resign from the union council of ministers if Rajiv had not let him speak in Parliament against the Supreme Court verdict.“I wish to set the record straight,” Fasihur writes. “There is no iota of truth in such preconceived notions that Ziaur Rahman Ansari ’s intervention in the debate related to the Supreme Court judgment in Shah Bano case was at the behest of Rajiv Gandhi or the Congress party. His intervention in the debate was his personal decision impelled by his conscience. It was neither the Congress Party nor Rajiv Gandhi who asked him to speak as has been claimed in various articles.”
Aziz Qureshi, who later became the governor of Uttarakhand during the UPA years, was also present at this Ansari-Gandhi meeting.
Quoting Qureshi, the author writes: “Magnanimous Rajiv Gandhi took the resignation letter, tore it and threw it in a dustbin. Who is stopping you to speak? Rajiv Gandhi asked Ziaur Rahman. How many well-wishers do we have remained (sic) with us now, Gandhi added, according to Dr. Aziz Qureshi.”
Fasihur’s account is a little different from the one that was put forth two years ago by senior bureaucrat Wajahat Habibullah. According to that version, it was M.J. Akbar who had influenced Rajiv to support the stance taken by the Muslim clergy.
“Then, one day as I entered Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s chamber, I found M.J. Akbar sitting across his table. Rajiv smiled cheerily, “Come in, come in Wajahat, you are one of us.” Habibullah had recalled that he found Rajiv’s greeting “odd” but discovered the reason soon enough. “Mr. Akbar had convinced Rajiv that if the government were not to contest the Shah Bano judgment, it would appear to the Muslim community that the Prime Minister did not regard them as his own. In what he perceived as the defence of their religious rights, Rajiv would show himself worthy of the support that the community had always placed in his family. This was the argument that Mr. Akbar developed in a Doordarshan debate with then-Minister Arif Mohammed Khan, in which Mr. Khan had argued that the Koranic provision or lack of it for maintenance was neither a compulsion nor closed to interpretation. But Mr. Akbar, more Westernised, had argued that the Muslims needed the reassurance that only an amendment could bring.”
Akbar, currently a minister in Narendra Modi government, did not contest Habibullah’s claim.
Rasheed Kidwai is an ORF visiting fellow, author and journalist. The views expressed here are his own.
On which date Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 passed in the parliament? On which date Babri Masid - Rama mandir locks were opened in Ayodhya? During Rajeev Gandhi rule.
ChatGPT
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was passed in the Parliament on May 19, 1986.
The locks of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya were opened on February 1, 1986. This decision allowed Hindu devotees to worship at the site, which had been locked since 1949. Both events occurred during the tenure of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
On which date did supreme court gave its judgement in Shabano case ? Who were the judges in the 5 member bench.
1986: Babri Masjid unlocked
It generated a political energy that culminated in the mosque’s ultimate destruction.
Published : Aug 15, 2022 06:00 IST
TEAM FRONTLINE
COMMENTSfollow iconFOLLOW USSHAREREAD LATER
At Ayodhya in November 1989, consecrated bricks brought from various parts of the country as part of the shilanyas exercise.
At Ayodhya in November 1989, consecrated bricks brought from various parts of the country as part of the shilanyas exercise. | Photo Credit: The Hindu Archives
The Rajiv Gandhi government’s overturning of the Supreme Court judgment in the Shah Bano case had not only riled the Indian middle class and the intelligentsia but also given a boost to the Hindu right wing and its majoritarian playbook. The Congress appeared to be siding with the Muslim orthodoxy with its own minister, Ziaur Rahman Ansari, had frowning on the Supreme Court judgment while addressing Parliament during the thick of the controversy.
At this tumultuous political juncture, Rajiv Gandhi took his second most injudicious decision: he green-signalled the opening of the Babri Masjid locks. The mosque had been locked by the Jawaharlal Nehru government in 1949 after idols of Ram appeared on the premises under mysterious circumstances on the heels of a campaign that sought to prove that the masjid stood at the exact birthplace of the Hindu deity Ram.
In a move most experts believe was made at the prompting of the government at New Delhi to divert attention
A Landmark Case On Triple Talaq (Popularly Known As ‘The Shah Bano Case’)
(Landmark)
Mohd. Ahmed Khan
vs.
Shah Bano Begum
AIR 1985 SCR (3) 844]
DATE OF JUDGMENT- 23rd April, 1985.
BENCH- D A Desai, E S Venkataramiah, Rangnath Mishra, O C Reddy, Y V Chandrachud.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- The case revolves around a long battle fought by a muslim woman, Shah Bano (appellant) against the system of triple talaq for the price of hatred by the community as well as her husband. The appellant got married to the respondent in 1932, who happened to be renowned advocate in Indore. 14 years after marriage the respondent got married to another woman younger to him and disowned the appellant and his 5 children that he had with her. Three years later to be disowned the appellant brought a petition for maintenance under Sec. 125 of the CrPC, 1973 because the respondent kept her deprived of the monthly maintenance of 200 rupees which he had promised to pay. In the same year he divorced her pronouncing talaq three times instantaneously which could not be revoked. He took the defence that since she does not remain to be his legal wife anymore he was not obliged to provide her maintenance of monthly alimony. At the instant the magistrate directed the respondent to pay her a monthly amount of 25/- after which she pleaded before the Madhya Pradesh HC to increase that amount up to 179 rupees. The court enhanced the amount to 179.20/-. The respondent filed a petition in the Apex court challenging the verdict of the HC pleading that the Islam or Islamic law does not permit to keep a connection with a spouse after divorce and therefore he is not liable to pay her maintenance on monthly basis.
UNDERSTANDING SECTION 125 OF THE CrPC- In this particular case clause 1 of Section 125 mentions about individuals who can claim maintenance, namely:
A wife from the husband.
A minor child (whether legitimate or illegitimate) from the father.
A minor child (whether legitimate or illegitimate) who is suffering from physical or mental anomaly, from the father.
Parents from their son or daughter.
There are certain conditions necessary for granting maintenance:
The person granting maintenance should have ‘sufficient’ means to do so.
If the person supposed to provide maintenance either refuses with his duty to provide the same or overlooks the same or defaults then it shall be considered as neglect or refusal.
The person asking for maintenance should be inefficient or unable to maintain himself then only he/she can claim for it.
The quantum of maintenance to be granted depends on the standard of living of both the parties.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT:
Whether the definition of the ‘wife’ within the purview of Sec. 125 of CrPC, 1973 includes a divorced Muslim woman.
Whether the Muslim husband after paying the due amount of ‘mehr’ is free from his duty to pay the maintenance afterwards.
Whether this section overrides the personal law of muslims.
Whether the uniform civil code can be extended to all the religions.
FINAL VERDICT:
The apex court after dismissing the plea of the respondent and upholding the decision of the HC came up with the following opinion:
That Section 125 of CrPC applies to all citizens of the country irrespective of their religion without resorting to any sort of discrimination; therefore there is no chance that the muslims shall be left out by any exception.
That if any conflict arises between the muslim personal law and Sec. 125 then the latter shall prevail.
That even if the duty of the husband to maintain his divorced wife extends only till the iddat period, still he has to maintain her beyond that period provided she is unable to maintain herself.
Husband having paid mehar does not absolve him of the duty to maintain his divorced wife beyond that. Mehar as it is not the amount paid on divorce under muslim personal law, rather it is paid either at the time of marriage or after that as a part of marriage by virtue of muslim custom being followed since time immemorial until it got recognition by the personal law.
She should be unable to maintain herself.
If she is able to maintain herself or she is willing to maintain herself after the divorce takes place then the husband is relieved of his duty to provide her monthly maintenance.
Section 125 is of secular nature.
The divorced wife shall be described as ‘wife’ within the meaning of sec. 125 unless she remarries.
That there exists no animosity between the Muslim personal law and Section 125 in context to husband’s duty to maintain the wife because the latter comes into play after the Muslim personal law has been applied as per which the husband is required to maintain till the iddat period and beyond that if she still remains unable to maintain herself, his duty to maintain her extends until she remarries.
CONCLUSION
Despite facing huge criticism and disagreement from the muslim community the Honourable SC played a remarkable role in upholding the decision in the favour of muslim women rights. But the aftermath involved the nullifying of the decision by the enactment of the “Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on divorce) ACT, 1986” by the Congress govt. under immense pressure placed by the muslim community. The Act said that the muslim husband’ s duty to maintain wife shall extend only to the period of the ‘iddat’ or 90 days after the divorce and incase a child takes birth the uptil the period of 2 years since the birth of the child. This brought the culture if muslim women demanding a onetime lump sum amount of alimony for a life time but most of the women who were illiterate or unaware still remained in a helpless condition. Eventually the constitutional validity of the Act was challenged in Daniel Latifi and Anr. Vs UOI.
On which date Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 passed in the parliament? On which date Babri Masid - Rama mandir locks were opened in Ayodhya? During Rajeev Gandhi rule.
ChatGPT
Shah Bano Begum DATE OF JUDGMENT- 23rd April, 1985.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was passed in the Parliament on May 19, 1986.
The locks of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya were opened on February 1, 1986.
This decision allowed Hindu devotees to worship at the site, which had been locked since 1949. Both events occurred during the tenure of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
The Supreme Court on July 10 ruled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to a claim of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, against her former husband — affirming that a parallel remedy under a secular law cannot be foreclosed by existing personal laws.
Decoding Supreme Court’s verdict on divorced Muslim women’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
PREMIUM
In a landmark ruling, the top Court opined that relief under Section 125 CrPC is a social security measure that operates independently of any Muslim personal law remedies. What are the key takeaways?
Updated - July 11, 2024 12:42 pm IST
Published - July 10, 2024 10:06 pm IST
AARATRIKA BHAUMIK
A group of Muslim women walk by a poster advocating for girls’s education.
A group of Muslim women walk by a poster advocating for girls’s education. | Photo Credit: AFP
The Supreme Court on July 10 ruled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to a claim of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, against her former husband — affirming that a parallel remedy under a secular law cannot be foreclosed by existing personal laws.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih pronounced separate but concurring judgments upholding the rights of Muslim women after a Muslim man challenged a Telangana High Court direction to pay ₹10,000 interim maintenance to his former wife. He had contended that the maintenance claim in his case would instead be governed by the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (1986 Act).
Muslim Women Illegally Divorced Through Triple Talaq Can Seek Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC : Supreme Court LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 10 July 2024 7:23 PM Listen to this Article The Supreme Court has held that a Muslim woman, who has been illegally divorced by the pronouncement of triple talaq, is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband as per Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This right is in addition to the remedy provided under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on M
Supreme Court verdict on maintenance to divorced Muslim women ended threat to Constitution: BJP
In what is popularly known as the Shah Bano case, the Supreme Court in 1985 had allowed her plea for alimony from her husband after she was .divorced. However, the then Congress government passed a law in Parliament to overrule the verdict following protests from conservative Muslim groups.
BJP spokesperson and Rajya Sabha MP Sudhanshu Trivedi.Credit:
New Delhi: The BJP on Wednesday lauded the Supreme Court verdict, which averred that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband, saying the...judgment has finished off a threat posed to the Constitution by the decision of a past Congress government.
BJP spokesperson and Rajya Sabha MP Sudhanshu Trivedi said the Rajiv Gandhi government's decision to enact a law to overrule an apex court judgment granting alimony to divorced Muslim women was one of the biggest threats to the Constitution as it gave primacy to Sharia, Islamic laws
"Whenever the Congress has been in power, the Constitution was under threat. It (Rajiv Gandhi government's) was a decision which gave primacy to Sharia over the Constitution. The prestige of the Constitution which was crushed during the Congress government has been restored by this order. The verdict has ended one of the big threats posed to the Constitution," he told a press conference while replying to a question.
In what is popularly known as the Shah Bano case, the Supreme Court in 1985 had allowed her plea for alimony from her husband after she was divorced. However, the then Congress government passed a law in Parliament to overrule the verdict following protests from conservative Muslim groups.
The Supreme Court has now granted a big relief to Muslim women, Trivedi said, adding that it should be seen beyond a matter of religion as it is an issue of equal rights.
