Abstract
This article examines and compares maintenance under Hindu and Muslim personal laws in India, focusing on right to maintenance of wife, children, parents and other dependants. It explains how the codified Hindu law, through Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Hindu Marriage Act provides for broad and continuous obligation of maintenance for widowed daughter in law and even illegitimate children. In contrast Muslim law, founded n=on Quranic principles, traditionally limits the maintenance till the time of Iddat, but through landmark judgements like Shah Bano[1]have expanded the limit of maintenance and protected Muslim women through section 125 CrPC[2](section 144 BNSS[3]). The article also contrasts Indian laws of maintenance with that of the UK’s model of maintenance. It also argues that maintenance should be guided with human dignity and social justice with Section 125 CrPC acting as a secular safety net.
Introduction
The law of maintenance is one of the most practical and socially important parts of family law. It is about survival, dignity and responsibility within the family. Maintenance means providing financial assistance to those who cannot maintain themselves. It could be a wife who relies on her husband, children who rely on their parents, or maybe even old parents who rely on their children. In every society, there is understanding that people with means should not leave their close dependents destitute or needy.
In India, maintenance is regulated both by personal laws as well as general laws. Since India has a plural legal system with regard to family laws, Hindus, Muslims, Parsis and Christians have their own personal laws. These laws are based on their religious doctrines, usages, and culture. They reflect religious teachings and cultural backgrounds. A secular remedy in CrPC (now BNSS) also exists which applies to everyone uniformly, irrespective of religion.
Talking about Hindu and Muslim laws, both the laws recognise the duty to maintain, but differ widely when it comes to rules. Hindu law is codified having specific and detailed statutes like the “Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956”[4] (thereafter referred to as HAMA) and it lays down wide and continuing obligations. Muslim Law on the other hand, is based on Quranic prescriptions and customary law with a more pointed focus on immediate responsibility like maintenance during marriage and Iddat. These variations tend to create legal and social controversies, particularly issues of women’s rights upon divorce.
The question of maintenance under Muslim law, became a national issue in the case of Shah Bano[5] where the supreme court upheld the right of a divorced Muslim woman to claim maintenance from her husband under “section 125 CrPC”[6]. The reaction of the orthodox community resulted in the formation and enactment of “Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986”[7]. Hindu law, in contrast has seen reforms through codification and thus wider and more flexible in comparison to the Muslim law.
Issue
Some issues regarding maintenance are:
- What are the grounds and extent of the right to maintenance for a wife, both during the subsistence and after divorce, under hindu law and muslim law?
- Who are the other dependents (like children and parents) entitled to claim maintenance under these two personal laws?
- How does the secular provision of maintenance under section 144 BNSS (section 125 CrPC) interact with the personal laws of hindus and muslims?
- How are the UK laws of maintenance different from the Indian personal laws of maintenance?
Rule
- Section 3(b) HAMA
- HAMA (Section 18-22)
- Section 125 CrPC
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Section 24,25)
- “Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat”[8]
- “Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum [1985] INSC 97”[9]
- “Danial Latifi v Union of India AIR 2001 SC 3958”[10]
- “Shabana Bano v Imran Khan [2009] INSC 1284”[11]
Application
MAINTENANCE UNDER HINDU LAW:
“Section 3(b) of HAMA” defines maintenance. It provides that maintenance can be for food, shelter, clothing, education etc. and in case of unmarried daughter, the reasonable expenses of her marriage.
Hindu law is codified and systematic. It entitles several classes of individuals to maintenance like wife, widowed daughter-in-law, parents and children, dependents etc.
“Section 18 of HAMA”[12] defines that a Hindu wife can claim maintenance throughout her life. She may reside separately and yet receive maintenance if her husband is responsible for cruelty, desertion, has any other spouse residing with him, or has converted to any other religion other than hindu etc. The intention is to safeguard the financial stability of the wife.
“Section 19 of HAMA”[13] imposes an obligation on the father-in-law to maintain and support his widowed daughter-in-law, subject to her inability to support herself. This provision is also in accordance with the Hindu concept of extended family responsibility. This section also provides the hierarchy for the maintenance of the widowed daughter-in-law, if the wife is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings and property, then:
- The estate of the expired husband can be used for her maintenance
- Her biological parents can support her
- If not these two, then her children can be obligated to maintain her or children’s property.
- If any of the above three are absent, then the father-in-law’s coparcenary property can be used to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law. Given she has not obtained any share from that property.
“Section 20 of HAMA”[14] specifically states that a Hindu is obligated to maintain minor children and parents who are elderly or infirm. The courts have read it liberally. In the case of “Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat”[15] the court concluded that a step-mother could claim maintenance from a step-son only if she is childless and her husband is incapable of supporting her. And the same is also provided in the explanation to section 20. Section 20 of HAMA also provides that a hindu is bound to maintain their legitimate or illegitimate children as long they are minor. This is so because the illegitimate children have no fault, so he/she should not be held back from the claim of maintenance. It is rather the fault of his/her parents, so the child should not suffer because of the parent’s decisions.
“Section 21 and 22 of HAMA”[16] further extends the claim and responsibility of maintenance to some other dependents such as unmarried sister or old relatives, of they were taken care of by the deceased prior to his death.
Apart from all these sections, “section 24 and 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955”[17] provides for pendete lite maintenance meaning it provides for the courts to award maintenance during pending litigation and even lifetime alimony upon divorce. This makes sure that a divorced Hindu wife is not rendered helpless in case she does not have enough funds to keep up with the court proceedings.
MAINTENANCE UNDER MUSLIM LAW:
Muslim law is different in its approach towards maintenance. Its foundation is the Quran, in which the obligation of the husband to provide for his wife has been stipulated.
It says that the wife must be kept by the husband during marriage as long as she is obedient and faithful. Once divorced, the man needs to pay maintenance for the duration of Iddat (about three months). Otherwise, generally Muslim law does not recognise any further responsibility. Indian courts have however attempted to extend this through secular law provisions.
In Muslim law, a muslim father is required to support and maintain his children up to the time the sons attain majority and daughter marries. Thereafter, the responsibility usually lapses.
And children are also legally obligated to support their poor parents who are unable to feed and maintain themselves.
The “Shah Bano (1985)”[18] was a turning point regarding the laws of maintenance under Muslim Law. The Supreme Court established that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under section 125 CrPC even beyond the Iddat period. This generated political agony, and in 1986 Act was enacted to limit this right. But in the case of “Danial Latifi v Union of India (2001)”[19], the court interpreted the Act in a manner that mandated husbands to provide a “reasonable and fair provision” for the future during the Iddat period itself. That is, the amount should be sufficient to sustain her after Iddat.
Subsequently, in “Shamim Ara v State of UP(2002)”[20], the court ruled that unilateral; triple talaq does not terminate the wife’s right to maintenance. In the case of “Shabana Bano v Imran Khan (2010)”[21], it was again made clear that a divorces Muslim woman may claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC until she gets re- married and that Section 125 CrPC is a secular law.
Therefore, to sum up, the Muslim Law had limited maintenance, but through judicial interpretations, courts have expanded the ambit of maintenance in favor of protecting women.
So, while Hindu Law via statutes and case laws, has been more easily flexible in adopting present needs. Muslim Law has witnessed clashes between tradition and constitutional ideals, yet judicial interpretations have balanced the two and women’s rights of maintenance.
SECTION 125 CrPC (SECTION 144 BNSS)
This section can also be called as a lifeline. It is speedy, inexpensive and universal. It is not confined to any religion, it is known as the secular law. The intention is not to decide complicate rights, but just to make sure that no one is left helpless or without any support.
This secular remedy harmonises various personal laws, but at the same time, it causes friction where personal laws appear to be repugnant to it.
COMPARISON OF INDIAN AND UK LAWS FOR MAINTENANCE
When we compare Indian laws of maintenance with the UlK laws of maintenance the first very striking difference is that India has a plural system of personal laws based on personal laws. On the other hand, UK has uniform family laws under their statute Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973. Hindus in India are regulated under the statutes like HAMA, Muslims under their own principles and the 1986 Act, and Section 125 of CrPC – a secular law. UK does not differentiate on the basis of religion and maintenance is determined on the basis of fairness, needs and capacity to pay.
Another difference is that both Hindu and Muslim laws in India place definite obligations on children to look after their parents, which is substantiated by 125 CrPC, while in UK there is no legal obligation on adult children to support parents, as welfare schemes and social security provide for their upkeep.
In India, where Indian parents have the obligation and duty to maintain their minor children under personal laws and CrPC, in UK, the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) determines and imposes payments for the child’s benefit.
Generally, where Indian laws places great emphasis upon family obligation and personal alws commitments, the UK brings together uniform legal framework with robust state welfare provisions, illustrating two quite contrasting strategies for reconciling family obligations and social justice.
Conclusion
To conclude, maintenance is not just a legal obligation, it is a social and ethical one. Hindu and muslim law both acknowledge this fact, but respond to it differently. Hindu law since it is codified, is wider and more flexible, providing women and dependents with greater rights. Musim law, based on religious scriptures, historically restricted maintenance, particularly for divorced women, but Indian courts have broadened its application to meet constitutional ideals of equality and justice.
The secular solution under Section 125 CrPC serves as a unifying protection, leaving no dependent destitute, regardless of religion. But occasions still occur where personal laws interfere with constitutional principles, as in the post- shah bano case controversies.
According to my views, maintenance laws should be based on the principle of human dignity and not on strict religious interpretations. No parent, child, or woman should be rendered helpless due to strict barriers of personal laws. Cultural diversity must be respected, but social justice has to be supreme. A Uniform Civil Code is still a distant dream, but atleast in the context of maintenance, we can embrace uniform standards that are fair.
The comparative analysis of hindu and muslim law demonstrates that hindu law is more progressive in nature, whereas muslim law is gradually developing through judicial interpretations. In practice section 125 CrPC is the best safety net. In future, more transparent legislation can coordinate these systems, minimise confusions and give all dependents dignity.
[1]Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum [1985] INSC 97
[2]Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s. 125
[3]Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s. 144
[4]Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956
[5] Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum [1985] INSC 97
[6]Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 125
[7] Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986
[8]Kirtikant D Vadodaria v State of Gujarat [1996] INSC 585
[9]Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum [1985] INSC 97
[10]Danial Latifi v Union of India AIR 2001 SC 3958
[11]Shabana Bano v Imran Khan [2009] INSC 1284
[12]Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, s.18
[13]Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, s. 19
[14] Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, s. 20
[15]Kirtikant D Vadodaria v State of Gujarat [1996] INSC 585
[16] Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, s. 21,22
[17] Hindu Marriage Act 1955, s. 24,25
[18]Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum [1985] INSC 97
[19] Danial Latifi v. Union of India AIR 2001 SC 3958
[20]Shamim Ara v. State of UP [2002] INSC 416
[21]Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan [2009] INSC 1284
Author Name- Samreen Chhabra, Designation: Student, 2nd year, Institution: Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
