NEW DELHI: Landmark Supreme Court give a verdict Muslim women the right to file a petition for maintenance according to “religion neutral” Chapter 125 of the CrPC has been brought to the fore memories of the 1985 Shah Bano court which then clearly stated that religion has no role to play in the applicability of this section. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, father of the present CJI DY Chandrachud, said: “Section 125 was enacted to give a quick and summary remedy to a class of people who cannot take care of themselves. What difference will it make. Whether the religion of the wife, children or neglected parents?”
On Wednesday, Supreme Court justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih upheld the religious neutrality of Section 125 and said: “The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 will not apply secular and religious neutral rules. Section 125 of the CrPC hereby dismissed the criminal appeal with the main conclusion that section 125 would apply to all women.
The judgment came on a petition by Mohammed Abdul Samad, who had approached the top court challenging the Telangana high court’s order refusing to interfere with the family court’s maintenance order. The family court has ordered Samad to pay an interim maintenance of Rs 20,000 to his estranged wife. Samad went to the high court and insisted that he was divorced under personal law in 2017 and there was a divorce certificate to that effect. However, the high court did not modify the order of the family court. It only reduces the maintenance amount from Rs 20,000 to Rs 10,000 per month.
The top court in the order reiterated what was said by the five judges of the bench The case of Shah Bano.
In its decision, the bench noted that the judgment of Shah Bano has extensively dealt with the issue of maintenance apropos the obligation of a Muslim husband for his divorced wife who is unable to maintain herself, either after having been given a divorce or has sought one.
“The bench (in Shah Bano’s case) unanimously held that the duty of the wife will not be affected by the existence of personal law in that regard and the independent remedy of seeking maintenance under section 125 CrPC 1973 is always available,” the bench said.
What is the case of Shah Bano?
Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, had in April 1978 filed a petition in court demanding maintenance from her divorced husband Mohammed Ahmad Khan, who was a lawyer in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The two married in 1932 and had five children – three sons and two daughters. Shah Bano was evicted from the matrimonial home in 1975, after a long period of living with Ahmad Khan and his second wife. Shah Bano went to court and filed a claim for monthly maintenance of Rs 500 for herself and five children under Section 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, Khan denied the claim on the grounds that Muslim Personal Law in India requires it. husband to only provide maintenance for the period of iddat after divorce.
In August 1979, the judge awarded her a maintenance of Rs 20 per month. In his appeal, the Madhya Pradesh HC increased it to Rs 179. Khan challenged the HC verdict before the SC. A five-judge SC bench headed by CJI YV Chandrachud in April 1985 upheld the maintenance granted by the HC with a direction to the husband to pay an additional Rs 10,000 as expenses to Bano.
So what changed after the Shah Bano trial?
The impact of the SC judgment in the Shah Bano case was diluted by the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, by the Congress government headed by Rajiv Gandhi. A 1986 law states that Muslim women can only seek alimony during iddat — 90 days after divorce.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act in 2001, but extended the right of Muslim women to seek treatment until they remarried. The court ruled that a Muslim man must provide maintenance to his divorced wife beyond the iddat period until she remarries.
BJP welcomes SC verdict, takes dig at Congress
The BJP welcomed the Supreme Court verdict and was quick to remind the Congress of how the grand old party had in the past reversed the same apex court order in the Shah Bano case. BJP spokesperson and Rajya Sabha MP Sudhanshu Trivedi took on the Congress while linking the verdict to the party’s old demand of protecting the Constitution.
“The Rajiv Gandhi government’s decision to enact a law to overturn the apex court verdict granting allowances to divorced Muslim women is one of the biggest threats to the Constitution as it gives primacy to Sharia, Islamic law,” said Sudhanshu Trivedi.
“When the Congress was in power, the Constitution was under threat. It (Rajiv Gandhi’s government) was a decision that gave primacy to Sharia over the Constitution. The prestige of the Constitution that was crushed during the Congress government has been restored. The decision ended one of the great threats to the Constitution,” he said. BJP leaders.
“There is no such thing as a secular country where Sharia provisions like halala, triple talaq and Hajj subsidies are allowed and the government then legislated has turned India into a partial Islamic country,” he said.
At UCC debate
The SC verdict will refocus the debate on the Uniform Civil Code – which remains one of the BJP’s unfulfilled promises. The BJP in its 2024 Lok Sabha election manifesto has promised to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) across the country after forming the government at the Centre.
The saffron party claims that Article 44 of the Constitution lists the Uniform Civil Code as one of the Directive Principles of State Policy. “The party reaffirms its stand to draw a Uniform Civil Code, drawing on the best traditions and aligning it with modern times,” it said in its manifesto.
However, the road ahead for the BJP on this promise may not be easy as the saffron party is now dependent on its allies to survive NDA 3. Telugu Desam Party chief Chandrababu Naidu, who is a key supporter of the Modi government, has openly supported the idea. of reservation for Muslims, which the BJP strongly opposes.
On Wednesday, Supreme Court justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih upheld the religious neutrality of Section 125 and said: “The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 will not apply secular and religious neutral rules. Section 125 of the CrPC hereby dismissed the criminal appeal with the main conclusion that section 125 would apply to all women.
The judgment came on a petition by Mohammed Abdul Samad, who had approached the top court challenging the Telangana high court’s order refusing to interfere with the family court’s maintenance order. The family court has ordered Samad to pay an interim maintenance of Rs 20,000 to his estranged wife. Samad went to the high court and insisted that he was divorced under personal law in 2017 and there was a divorce certificate to that effect. However, the high court did not modify the order of the family court. It only reduces the maintenance amount from Rs 20,000 to Rs 10,000 per month.
The top court in the order reiterated what was said by the five judges of the bench The case of Shah Bano.
In its decision, the bench noted that the judgment of Shah Bano has extensively dealt with the issue of maintenance apropos the obligation of a Muslim husband for his divorced wife who is unable to maintain herself, either after having been given a divorce or has sought one.
“The bench (in Shah Bano’s case) unanimously held that the duty of the wife will not be affected by the existence of personal law in that regard and the independent remedy of seeking maintenance under section 125 CrPC 1973 is always available,” the bench said.
What is the case of Shah Bano?
Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, had in April 1978 filed a petition in court demanding maintenance from her divorced husband Mohammed Ahmad Khan, who was a lawyer in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The two married in 1932 and had five children – three sons and two daughters. Shah Bano was evicted from the matrimonial home in 1975, after a long period of living with Ahmad Khan and his second wife. Shah Bano went to court and filed a claim for monthly maintenance of Rs 500 for herself and five children under Section 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, Khan denied the claim on the grounds that Muslim Personal Law in India requires it. husband to only provide maintenance for the period of iddat after divorce.
In August 1979, the judge awarded her a maintenance of Rs 20 per month. In his appeal, the Madhya Pradesh HC increased it to Rs 179. Khan challenged the HC verdict before the SC. A five-judge SC bench headed by CJI YV Chandrachud in April 1985 upheld the maintenance granted by the HC with a direction to the husband to pay an additional Rs 10,000 as expenses to Bano.
So what changed after the Shah Bano trial?
The impact of the SC judgment in the Shah Bano case was diluted by the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, by the Congress government headed by Rajiv Gandhi. A 1986 law states that Muslim women can only seek alimony during iddat — 90 days after divorce.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act in 2001, but extended the right of Muslim women to seek treatment until they remarried. The court ruled that a Muslim man must provide maintenance to his divorced wife beyond the iddat period until she remarries.
BJP welcomes SC verdict, takes dig at Congress
The BJP welcomed the Supreme Court verdict and was quick to remind the Congress of how the grand old party had in the past reversed the same apex court order in the Shah Bano case. BJP spokesperson and Rajya Sabha MP Sudhanshu Trivedi took on the Congress while linking the verdict to the party’s old demand of protecting the Constitution.
“The Rajiv Gandhi government’s decision to enact a law to overturn the apex court verdict granting allowances to divorced Muslim women is one of the biggest threats to the Constitution as it gives primacy to Sharia, Islamic law,” said Sudhanshu Trivedi.
“When the Congress was in power, the Constitution was under threat. It (Rajiv Gandhi’s government) was a decision that gave primacy to Sharia over the Constitution. The prestige of the Constitution that was crushed during the Congress government has been restored. The decision ended one of the great threats to the Constitution,” he said. BJP leaders.
“There is no such thing as a secular country where Sharia provisions like halala, triple talaq and Hajj subsidies are allowed and the government then legislated has turned India into a partial Islamic country,” he said.
At UCC debate
The SC verdict will refocus the debate on the Uniform Civil Code – which remains one of the BJP’s unfulfilled promises. The BJP in its 2024 Lok Sabha election manifesto has promised to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) across the country after forming the government at the Centre.
The saffron party claims that Article 44 of the Constitution lists the Uniform Civil Code as one of the Directive Principles of State Policy. “The party reaffirms its stand to draw a Uniform Civil Code, drawing on the best traditions and aligning it with modern times,” it said in its manifesto.
However, the road ahead for the BJP on this promise may not be easy as the saffron party is now dependent on its allies to survive NDA 3. Telugu Desam Party chief Chandrababu Naidu, who is a key supporter of the Modi government, has openly supported the idea. of reservation for Muslims, which the BJP strongly opposes.