NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, Supreme Court Wednesday said women, regardless of faith, have rights maintenance under Chapter 125 of the Criminal Code and rejected that argument Muslim women (Protection from Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, or the personal laws of different communities prevent them from taking the benefits of maintenance guaranteed under secular law.
A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih believed that Muslim women should decide which of the two laws or both they should follow. “Maintenance is an aspect of gender parity and equality provision, not charity,” Justice Nagarathna said.
In a separate but concurring judgment, the judges said that Section 125 CrPC applies to all married women, including Muslims. He said the provision is a measure for social justice to protect the weaker sections, regardless of the personal law that applies from the party.
The right of maintenance according to the two “there is equality” to ensure the right to seek maintenance for divorced Muslim women, Justice Masih said.
Supreme Court: Parliament never sought to limit rights of divorced Muslim women to ‘iddat’ period
We tend to conclude that the same right of maintenance defined under both, the secular provisions of Section 125 of the CrPC 1973 and the private law provisions of Section 3 of the 1986 Act, are parallel in different domains and jurisprudence, thus, aiming at a harmonious construction and there continues to be a right to claim maintenance for divorced Muslim women under the provisions of CrPC 1973 despite the ananectment of the 1986 Act,” Justice Masih said, adding that Parliament never tried to limit the rights of divorced Muslim women to the period of ‘iddat’ refers to the period of time that women Muslims must wait before they can remarry, 3 months in case of divorce.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act was enacted by the Rajiv Gandhi government in response to pressure from Muslim groups and politicians upset by the SC verdict in the Shah Bano case where the court ordered divorce for the old and poor. from Bhopal was given a monthly maintenance of Rs 125 per month.
Justice Nagarathna said that the parliament enacted the 1986 law to enhance the rights of divorced Muslim women in addition to what they would otherwise be entitled to under Section 125 CrPC. He said that the intention was to reduce the rights of divorced Muslim women, so the clause ‘notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force’ would not find a place in section 3 and the Parliament did not simultaneously or at any time then create a bar for Muslim women who is divorced from claiming maintenance under section 125.
“One cannot read Section 3 of the 1986 Act which contains a non-obstan clause so as to restrict or reduce the right to maintain a divorced Muslim woman under Section 125 of the CrPC nor is it a substitute for the latter. Such an interpretation would be regressive to Muslim women , anti-divorce and contrary to Articles 14, 15 (1) and (3) as well as Article 39 (e) of the Constitution,” said Justice Nagarathna.
“Therefore, a technical or pedantic interpretation of the 1986 Act will stultify not only gender justice but also the constitutional right of access to justice for aggrieved divorced Muslim women who are in dire need of maintenance. imposed on women in the emphasis on sufficient maintenance, not the minimum amount After all , maintenance is a facet of gender equality and an enabler of equality, not charity It follows that a poor Muslim woman has the right to seek maintenance in section 125 of the CrPC despite the 1986 Act, “he said.
The court noted that Section 125 of the CrPC is more beneficial for women compared to Section 3 of the 1986 law because maintenance for a divorced Muslim woman is provided at the time of ‘iddat’ by her husband under the 1986 law but under the secular provision, a divorced woman is entitled to maintenance up to he remarried. Under personal law, maintenance for children is provided by the ex-husband only for a period of two years but under section 125, maintenance is provided until the child reaches the age of majority.
A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih believed that Muslim women should decide which of the two laws or both they should follow. “Maintenance is an aspect of gender parity and equality provision, not charity,” Justice Nagarathna said.
In a separate but concurring judgment, the judges said that Section 125 CrPC applies to all married women, including Muslims. He said the provision is a measure for social justice to protect the weaker sections, regardless of the personal law that applies from the party.
The right of maintenance according to the two “there is equality” to ensure the right to seek maintenance for divorced Muslim women, Justice Masih said.
Supreme Court: Parliament never sought to limit rights of divorced Muslim women to ‘iddat’ period
We tend to conclude that the same right of maintenance defined under both, the secular provisions of Section 125 of the CrPC 1973 and the private law provisions of Section 3 of the 1986 Act, are parallel in different domains and jurisprudence, thus, aiming at a harmonious construction and there continues to be a right to claim maintenance for divorced Muslim women under the provisions of CrPC 1973 despite the ananectment of the 1986 Act,” Justice Masih said, adding that Parliament never tried to limit the rights of divorced Muslim women to the period of ‘iddat’ refers to the period of time that women Muslims must wait before they can remarry, 3 months in case of divorce.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act was enacted by the Rajiv Gandhi government in response to pressure from Muslim groups and politicians upset by the SC verdict in the Shah Bano case where the court ordered divorce for the old and poor. from Bhopal was given a monthly maintenance of Rs 125 per month.
Justice Nagarathna said that the parliament enacted the 1986 law to enhance the rights of divorced Muslim women in addition to what they would otherwise be entitled to under Section 125 CrPC. He said that the intention was to reduce the rights of divorced Muslim women, so the clause ‘notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force’ would not find a place in section 3 and the Parliament did not simultaneously or at any time then create a bar for Muslim women who is divorced from claiming maintenance under section 125.
“One cannot read Section 3 of the 1986 Act which contains a non-obstan clause so as to restrict or reduce the right to maintain a divorced Muslim woman under Section 125 of the CrPC nor is it a substitute for the latter. Such an interpretation would be regressive to Muslim women , anti-divorce and contrary to Articles 14, 15 (1) and (3) as well as Article 39 (e) of the Constitution,” said Justice Nagarathna.
“Therefore, a technical or pedantic interpretation of the 1986 Act will stultify not only gender justice but also the constitutional right of access to justice for aggrieved divorced Muslim women who are in dire need of maintenance. imposed on women in the emphasis on sufficient maintenance, not the minimum amount After all , maintenance is a facet of gender equality and an enabler of equality, not charity It follows that a poor Muslim woman has the right to seek maintenance in section 125 of the CrPC despite the 1986 Act, “he said.
The court noted that Section 125 of the CrPC is more beneficial for women compared to Section 3 of the 1986 law because maintenance for a divorced Muslim woman is provided at the time of ‘iddat’ by her husband under the 1986 law but under the secular provision, a divorced woman is entitled to maintenance up to he remarried. Under personal law, maintenance for children is provided by the ex-husband only for a period of two years but under section 125, maintenance is provided until the child reaches the age of majority.
