Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Md.Anwarul Haque Danish (None)     07 December 2009

SC- Maintainance to muslim woman till next marriage 4 Dec 09

SC- Maintainance to muslim woman till next marriage 4 Dec 09

 

 

Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                       -1-

                                                           REPORTABLE

 

                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2309 OF 2009

             [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.717 of 2009]

 

 

       Shabana Bano                                     ....Appellant

 

                                           Versus

 

 

       Imran Khan                                       ....Respondent

 

                                  J U D G M E N T

 

       Deepak Verma, J.

 

       1.             Leave granted.

 

       2.             Appellant Shabana Bano was married to the

 

       respondent Imran Khan according to Muslim rites at

 

       Gwalior on 26.11.2001. According to the appellant, at

 

       the time of marriage, necessary household goods to be

 

       used by the couple           were     given.   However,   despite

 

       this, the respondent-husband and his family members

 

       treated the appellant with cruelty and continued to

 

       demand more dowry.


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                              -2-

       3.             After          some    time,     the    appellant    became

 

       pregnant and was taken to her parents' house by the

 

       respondent.             The respondent threatened the appellant

 

       that in case his demand of dowry is not met by the

 

       appellant's parents, then she would not be taken back

 

       to her matrimonial home even after delivery.

 

       4.             Appellant delivered a child in her parental

 

       home. Since even after delivery, respondent did not

 

       think it proper to discharge his responsibility by

 

       taking        her      back,     she    was     constrained   to   file    a

 

       petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

 

       Procedure              (for     short,        'Cr.P.C.')    against   the

 

       respondent in the Court of Family Judge, Gwalior.                         It

 

       was averred by the appellant that respondent has been

 

       earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month by doing some

 

       private work and she had no money to maintain herself

 

       and her new-born child.                   Thus, she claimed a sum of

 

       Rs.3000/-           per       month    from    the    respondent   towards

 

       maintenance.

 

       5.             On notice being issued to the respondent, he


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                         -3-

       denied all the contents of the petition filed by the

 

       appellant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. except

 

       admitting his marriage with the appellant.

 

       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.     It    was     also    contended     by

 

       respondent that appellant had gone to her parental

 

       home on her own free-will and accord, after taking

 

       all the jewellery and a sum of Rs.1000/- and despite

 

       notice        being    sent,    she    has    not   returned    to   her

 

       matrimonial home. Thus, for all these reasons, she is


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                              -4-

       not entitled to receive any amount of maintenance.

 

       7.             The Family Court was pleased to frame issues

 

       and     parties        went     to   trial.    After     considering      the

 

       matter from all angles,                  the   learned       Judge   of   the

 

       Family          Court         partly     allowed       the     appellant's

 

       application            as under:

 

                   "(1) respondent shall pay Rs.2000/- per

                   month as maintenance allowance to the

                   petitioner   from    26.4.2004,  date  of

                   institution of    petition to the date of

                   divorce, i.e. 20.8.2004 and thereafter

                   from 20.8.2004 to the period of iddat.

 

                   (2) respondent will bear cost of the suit

                   of himself as well as of petitioner."

 

 

       8.             Thus, the claim of the appellant was allowed

 

       to     the     extent     of     Rs.    2,000/-    per       month   towards

 

       maintenance            from    the     date   of   institution       of   the

 

       petition till the date of divorce, i.e., 20.8.2004

 

       and further from the said date till the expiry of

 

       iddat period but amount of maintenance thereafter was

 

       denied.

 

       9.             The appellant was, therefore, constrained to

 

       carry the matter further by filing Criminal Revision


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                           -5-

       No. 285 of 2008 before the Gwalior Bench of the High

 

       Court of Madhya Pradesh. The said Criminal Revision

 

       came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge on

 

       26.9.2008           and   the    order    of    the   Family    Court    has

 

       substantially             been    upheld       and    consequently,      the

 

       appellant's Revision has been dismissed.                        It is this

 

       order and the order passed by the Family Court which

 

       are the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal by

 

       grant of special leave.

 

       10.            At      the   outset,      learned      counsel    for    the

 

       appellant           contended     that     learned     Single    Judge    has

 

       gravely erred in dismissing the appellant's Revision

 

       on     misconception         of   law     on    the   ground    that    after

 

       divorce of a Muslim wife, a petition under Section 125

 

       of the Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable. It was also

 

       contended that learned Single Judge proceeded on wrong

 

       assumption in dismissing appellant's Revision claiming

 

       maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It was

 

       also argued that both the courts below completely lost

 

       sight of the provisions of Section 7(1)(f) of the


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                          -6-

       Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as

 

       the 'Family Act').

 

       11.            On the other hand, Shri S.K. Dubey, learned

 

       Senior Counsel for the respondent contended that no

 

       illegality or perversity can be found in the order

 

       passed by the learned Single Judge and the same calls

 

       for no interference.              It was also contended that the

 

       appeal        being      devoid   of   any   merit    and   substance,

 

       deserves to be dismissed.

 

       12.            In the light of the aforesaid contentions,

 

       we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

 

       perused the records.

 

       13.            The basic and foremost question that arises

 

       for consideration is whether a Muslim divorced wife

 

       would        be        entitled   to     receive     the    amount   of

 

       maintenance from her divorced husband under Section

 

       125 of the Cr.P.C. and, if yes, then through which

 

       forum.

 

       14.            Section 4 of Muslim Act reads as under:

 

                      "4. Order for payment of maintenance:

                   -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                     -7-

                   in the foregoing provisions of this Act

                   or in any other law for the time being

                   in   force,    where   a    Magistrate    is

                   satisfied that a divorced woman has not

                   re-married and is not able to maintain

                   herself after the iddat period, he may

                   make an order directing such of her

                   relatives   as   would   be    entitled   to

                   inherit   her   property    on   her   death

                   according to Muslim law to pay such

                   reasonable and fair maintenance to her

                   as he may determine fit and proper,

                   having regard to the needs of the

                   divorced woman, the standard of life

                   enjoyed by her during her marriage and

                   the means of such relatives and such

                   maintenance shall be payable by such

                   relatives in the proportions in which

                   they would inherit her property and at

                   such periods as he may specify in his

                   order:

 

                       Provided that where such divorced

                   woman has children, the Magistrate shall

                   order   only   such  children   to   pay

                   maintenance to her, and in the event of

                   any such children being unable to pay

                   such maintenance, the Magistrate shall

                   order the parents of such divorced woman

                   to pay maintenance to her:

 

                       Provided further that if any of the

                   parents is unable to pay his or her

                   share of the maintenance ordered by the

                   Magistrate on the ground of his or her

                   not having the means   to pay the same,

                   the Magistrate may, on proof of such

                   inability being furnished to him, order

                   that the share of such relatives in the

                   maintenance ordered by him be paid by


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                         -8-

                   such of the other relatives as may

                   appear to the Magistrate to have the

                   means of paying the      same in   such

                   proportions as the Magistrate may think

                   fit to order.

 

                       (2) Where a divorced woman is unable

                   to maintain herself and she has no

                   relatives as mentioned in sub-section

                   (1) or such relatives or any one of them

                   have not enough means       to pay    the

                   maintenance ordered by the Magistrate or

                   the other relatives have not the means

                   to pay the shares of those relatives

                   whose shares have been ordered by the

                   Magistrate to be paid by such other

                   relatives under the second proviso to

                   sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, by

                   order, direct the State Wakf Board

                   established under Section 9 of the Wakf

                   Act, 1954 (29 of 1954), or under any

                   other law for the time being in force in

                   a State, functioning in the area in

                   which the woman resides, to pay such

                   maintenance as determined by him under

                   sub-section (1) or, as the case may be,

                   to pay the shares of such of the

                   relatives who are unable to pay, at such

                   periods as he may specify in his order."

 

 

       15.            Section 5 thereof deals with the option to be

 

       governed by the provisions of Section 125 to 128 of

 

       the Cr.P.C.            It appears that parties had not given any

 

       joint or separate application for being considered by

 

       the Court.             Section 7 thereof deals with transitional


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                                  -9-

       provisions.

 

       16.            Family Act, was enacted w.e.f. 14th September,

 

       1984      with         a    view    to   promote        conciliation    in,    and

 

       secure        speedy         settlement          of,   disputes     relating    to

 

       marriage and family affairs and for matters connected

 

       therewith.

 

       17.            The purpose of enactment was essentially to

 

       set up family courts for the settlement of family

 

       disputes, emphasizing on conciliation and achieving

 

       socially         desirable          results       and    adherence     to   rigid

 

       rules of procedure and evidence should be eliminated.

 

       In other words, the purpose was for early settlement

 

       of family disputes.

 

       18.            The         Act,    inter      alia,    seeks   to   exclusively

 

       provide within jurisdiction of the family courts the

 

       matters            relating              to       maintenance,         including

 

       proceedings under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C.

 

       19.            Section 7 appearing in Chapter III of the

 

       Family          Act         deals        with      Jurisdiction.       Relevant

 

       provisions thereof read as under:


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                         - 10 -

                       "7. Jurisdiction-(1) Subject to the

                 other provisions of this Act, a Family

                 Court shall -

 

                         (a) have   and   exercise    all   the

                         jurisdiction   exercisable    by   any

                         district Court or any subordinate

                         civil Court under any law for the

                         time being in force in respect of

                         suits and proceedings of the nature

                         referred to in the Explanation; and

 

                         (b) be deemed, for the purposes of

                         exercising such jurisdiction under

                         such law, to be a district Court or,

                         as the case may be, such subordinate

                         civil Court for the area to which the

                         jurisdiction of the Family Court

                         extends.

 

                     Explanation.-     The   suits    and

                 proceedings referred to in this sub-

                 section are suits and proceedings of the

                 following nature, namely:-

 

                         (a) .... .... ....

                         (b) .... .... ....

                         (c) .... .... ....

                         (d) .... .... ....

                         (e) .... .... ....

                         (f)    a   suit  or       proceeding      for

                                maintenance;

                         (g) .... .... ...."

 

       20.            Section 20 of the Family Act appearing in

 

       Chapter         VI     deals   with   overriding   effect    of   the

 

       provisions of the Act.                 The said section reads as


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                             - 11 -

       under :

 

                  "20. Act    to have overriding effect -

              The provisions of this Act shall have effect

              notwithstanding     anything    inconsistent

              therewith contained in any other law for the

              time being in force or in any instrument

              having effect by virtue of any law other

              than this Act."

 

 

       21.            Bare perusal of Section 20 of the Family Act

 

       makes it crystal clear that the provisions of this

 

       Act      shall         have    overriding        effect       on     all     other

 

       enactments in force dealing with this issue.

 

       22.            Thus, from the abovementioned provisions it

 

       is quite discernible that a Family Court established

 

       under         the       Family       Act       shall     exclusively         have

 

       jurisdiction            to     adjudicate        upon    the       applications

 

       filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

 

       23.            In the light of the aforesaid contentions and

 

       in view of the pronouncement of judgments detailing

 

       the     said      issue,       learned     counsel      for    the    appellant

 

       submits         that        matter    stands       finally         settled    but

 

       learned Single Judge wholly misconstrued the various

 

       provisions             of     the    different         Acts    as     mentioned


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                             - 12 -

       hereinabove,                thus,   committed         a      grave     error    in

 

       rejecting the appellant's prayer.

 

       24.            In our opinion, the point stands settled by

 

       judgment of this Court reported in (2001) 7 SCC 740

 

       titled        Danial         Latifi   &    Anr.       Vs.    Union     of   India

 

       pronounced             by   a   Constitution         Bench    of     this   Court.

 

       Paras 30, 31 and 32 thereof fully establish the said

 

       right       of    the       appellant.         The    said     paragraphs      are

 

       reproduced hereinunder :

 

 

 

              "30.    A comparison of these provisions with

              Section 125 CrPC will make it clear that

              requirements provided in Section 125 and the

              purpose, object and scope thereof being to

              prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can

              do so to support those who are unable to

              support themselves and who have a normal and

              legitimate claim to support are satisfied. If

              that is so, the argument of the petitioners

              that a different scheme being provided under

              the Act which is equally or more beneficial on

              the interpretation placed by us from the one

              provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure

              deprive them of their right, loses its

              significance. The object and scope of Section

              125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy by compelling

              those who are under an obligation to support

              those who are unable to support themselves and

              that object being fulfilled, we find it

              difficult to accept the contention urged on

              behalf of the petitioners.


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                 - 13 -

              31. Even under the Act, the parties agreed

              that the provisions of Section 125 CrPC would

              still be attracted and even otherwise, the

              Magistrate has been conferred with the power

              to make appropriate provision for maintenance

              and, therefore, what could be earlier granted

              by a Magistrate under Section 125 CrPC would

              now be granted under the very Act itself.

              This being the position, the Act cannot be

              held to be unconstitutional.

              32. As on the date the Act came into force the

              law applicable to Muslim divorced women is as

              declared by this Court in Shah Bano's case

              [(1985) 2 SCC 556 Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah

              Bano Begum & Ors.]. In this case to find out

              the personal law of Muslims with regard to

              divorced women's rights, the starting point

              should be Shah Bano's case and not the

              original texts or any other material - all the

              more so when varying versions as to the

              authenticity of the source are shown to exist.

              Hence, we have refrained from referring to

              them in detail.     That declaration was made

              after considering the Holy Quran, and other

              commentaries or other texts.         When    a

              Constitution Bench of this Court analysed

              Suras 241-242 of Chapter II of the Holy Quran

              and other relevant textual material, we do not

              think, it is open for us to re-examine that

              position and delve into a research to reach

              another conclusion. We respectfully abide by

              what has been stated therein. All that needs

              to be considered is whether in the Act

              specific deviation has been made from the

              personal laws as declared by this Court in

              Shah Bano's case without mutilating its

              underlying ratio. We have carefully analysed

              the same and come to the conclusion that the

              Act actually and in reality codifies what was

              stated in Shah Bano's case. The learned


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                        - 14 -

              Solicitor General contended that what has been

              stated in the Objects and Reasons in Bill

              leading to the Act is a fact and that we

              should presume to be correct.         We have

              analysed the facts and the law in Shah Bano's

              case and proceeded to find out the impact of

              the same on the Act.    If the language of the

              Act is as we have stated, the mere fact that

              the Legislature took note of certain facts in

              enacting the law will not be of much

              materiality."

       25.            Judgment of this Court reported in (2007) 6

 

       SCC 785 titled Iqbal Bano Vs. State of U.P.& Anr.

 

       whereby the provisions contained in Section 125 of

 

       the      Cr.P.C.       have   been   aptly   considered   and   the

 

       relevant portion of the order passed in Iqbal Bano's

 

       case reads as under:

 

                  "10. Proceedings   under   Section   125

              Cr.P.C. are civil in nature. Even if the

              Court noticed that there was a divorced

              woman in the case in question, it was open

              to it to treat it as a petition under the

              Act considering the beneficial nature of the

              legislation.   Proceedings under Section 125

              Cr.P.C. and claims made under the Act are

              tried by the same court. In Vijay Kumar

              Prasad Vs State of Bihar (2004) 5 SCC 196 it

              was held that proceedings under Section 125

              Cr.P.C. are civil in nature.    It was noted

              as follows: (SCC p.200, Para 14).

 

                   14.    The basic distinction between

                   Section 488 of the old Code and Section

                   126 of the Code is that Section 126 has


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                     - 15 -

                   essentially   enlarged   the  venue   of

                   proceedings for maintenance so as to

                   move the place where the wife may be

                   residing on the date of application. The

                   change was thought necessary because of

                   certain   observations    by   the   Law

                   Commission, taking note of the fact that

                   often deserted wives are compelled to

                   live with their relatives far away from

                   the place where the husband and wife

                   last resided together. As noted by this

                   Court in several cases, proceedings

                   under Section 125 of the Code are of

                   civil nature.    Unlike clauses (b) and

                   (c) of Section 126 (1) an application by

                   the father or the mother claiming

                   maintenance has to be filed where the

                   person from whom maintenance is claimed

                   lives."

 

       26.          In the light of the findings already recorded

 

       in earlier paras, it is not necessary for us to go

 

       into the merits.        The point stands well settled which

 

       we would like to reiterate.

 

       27.            The appellant's petition under Section 125 of

 

       the Cr.P.C. would be maintainable before the Family

 

       Court as long as appellant does not remarry.             The

 

       amount of maintenance to be awarded under Section 125

 

       of the Cr.P.C. cannot be restricted for the iddat

 

       period only.


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                           - 16 -

       28.             Learned Single Judge appeared to be little

 

       confused          with    regard        to       different     provisions       of

 

       Muslim        Act,      Family   Act         and    Cr.P.C.    and     thus    was

 

       wholly          unjustified      in      rejecting          the      appellant's

 

       Revision.

 

       29.             Cumulative reading of the relevant portions

 

       of judgments of this Court in Danial Latifi (supra)

 

       and Iqbal Bano (supra) would make it crystal clear

 

       that even a divorced Muslim woman would be entitled

 

       to claim maintenance from her divorced husband, as

 

       long       as     she    does    not         remarry.         This     being     a

 

       beneficial piece of legislation, the benefit thereof

 

       must accrue to the divorced Muslim women.

 

       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.


Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

                                          - 17 -

       31.            As      a   necessary        consequence     thereof,      the

 

       matter is remanded to the Family Court at Gwalior for

 

       its      disposal          on   merits       at   an    early    date,    in

 

       accordance with law. The respondent shall bear the

 

       cost of litigation of the appellant.                       Counsel's fees

 

       Rs.5,000/-.

 

       32.            Consequently,       the      appeal     stands   allowed   to

 

       the extent indicated above.

 

 

 

 

                                                     ......................J.

                                                     [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY]

 

 

 

                                                     ......................J.

                                                     [DEEPAK VERMA]

       New Delhi.

       December 04, 2009.


 



Learning

 8 Replies

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     07 December 2009

This is a remarkable decision and I think this decision shall change the character of Shah Bano case.

Aftab4u (PVT EMPLOYEE)     10 December 2009

29 November 2009, 01:51

   

 


AEJAZ AHMED

Legal Consultant/Lawyer



[ Scorecard : 11462]


Thank the Contributor

Send PM

 

Dear Aftab,

First of all I want to clarify you on few points:

As per Islamic/Quranic  law

(i)  every "Muslim" is having right to marry and have "Four" wives at a time.

(ii) to marry with second Girl, no need to take "Divorce" from First wife.

(iii) She must be " Major/ Baligh ".

Therefore legally nobody can harass you if you marry with the Girl as you stated. 

For your information, for Muslims, there is Muslim a Personal Law, and all the personal matters of Muslims are governed under the said act.  Kindly go through the following:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 

THE MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW (SHARIAT) APPLICATION ACT, 1937.ACT No. 26 OF 1937.[7th October, 1937.]
 

1.Short title and extent:

1...................

2.Application of Personal Law to Muslims.-

Notwithstanding any customs or usage to the contrary, in all questions (save questions relating to agricultural land) regarding intestate succession, special property of females, including personal property inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of Personal Law, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and trust properties, and wakfs (other than charities and charitable institutions and charitable and religion endowments) the rule of decision in cases where the parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat).

 

 

Respected Sirs,

A query.

As per islamic law maintenance is allowed for iddat period only....and Hoble court has given the judgement that the maintenance should be given till her 2nd marriage.

Is there any possibility that  the following problems may arise ?

1.The husband will not give divorse and he will harass his wife.

2.The wife will also not remarry and she can make illegal affair with anyone.

3.If leaving seperately he/she can make living relationship with anyone with out giving divorse.

4.There is every posibility for men to harass their wife and they will not give divorse coz they need to pay the maintanance charges.

Pls correct me if iam wrong.

Aftab.

G.G.Shaikh Advocate M:9898038990 (lawyer)     10 December 2009

i fully agree with mr ezaz

 

Aftab4u (PVT EMPLOYEE)     12 December 2009

Dear Shaikh Sahab,

My question was do all the muslims need to follow the Islamic shariat or Honble SC Judgement regarding the maintenance etc.

Do we need to pay the maintenance only till iddat period or till the women remarry after divorse.

Aftab

Aftab4u (PVT EMPLOYEE)     16 December 2009

Dear Experts ,

 

Plz respond

 

Aftab

Prodyut Banerjee (Advocate (Corporate Lawyer))     28 January 2010

Now it is the time to move for a "UNIFORM CIVIL CODE".

Prodyut Banerjee (Advocate (Corporate Lawyer))     28 January 2010

A WELCOME AND LAND MARK JUDGEMENT BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. THE JUDGEMENT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN EACH AND EVERY CASE AND SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     28 January 2010

I do agree with Prodyut.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register