Andhra High Court All India Muslim Advocates Forum vs Osman Khan Brahamaini @ Basha And ... 13. Questions do arise as to the period to which and the amount for which the husband is liable to make a provision. In so far as the period is concerned surely it is much more beyond the iddat period and for the future of the divorced wife. As to the amount or extent of making the provision, the factors are almost similar as those that govern the fixation of maintenance. The state of condition as to the health or education of the divorced wife is a dominant factor in arriving at the extent or amount of the provision as also the period for which it is to be assessed. For instance, the divorced wife may be a student of medicine, engineering, etc.; or she may be an in-patient or suffering from some chronic disease at the crucial time. These are simply different examples. In such and similar cases it would be doing harm to the beneficial legislation if the provision is confined to the iddat period on the ground that maintenance has got to be so. The amount or extent to which and the period for which the husband is liable to make a provision depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be a general or common ruling on these aspects. Accordingly I am of the firm view that the maintenance contemplated by Section 3(i)(a) of the Act is limited to the Iddat period while the fair and reasonable provision to be made in terms of the same section runs for the future much beyond the iddat period. As mentioned in the opening paragraph, except to this extent as regards the effect and import of the term 'reasonable and fair provision' in Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, I express my absolute concurrence with regard to the rest of the conclusions and the reasoning issued therefor in the judgment of my learned brother, Sardar Ali Khan, J. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/222689/
16 May 2018
Supreme Court of India Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009 Author: ......................J. Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy, Deepak Verma 6. Preliminary objections were raised by the respondent that appellant has already been divorced on 20.8.2004 in accordance with Muslim Law. Thus, under the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as `Muslim Act'), appellant is not entitled to any maintenance after the divorce and after the expiry of the iddat period. It was also contended by him that appellant herself is earning Rs.6,000/- per month by giving private tuitions and is not dependent on the income of the respondent, thus, she is not entitled to any maintenance. 30. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and quashed. It is held that even if a Muslim woman has been divorced, she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. after the expiry of period of iddat also, as long as she does not remarry.