Justice Secured: Supreme Court Reaffirms Maintenance Rights For Muslim Women

Justice Secured: Supreme Court Reaffirms Maintenance Rights For Muslim Women

Maintenance as a right for women is indispensable in nature. It is not just a right of the wife per se but also a necessary support to ensure her living standards remain consistent with how she lived before the divorce. It is aimed at securing the safe and secure future of not only the wife but also her children. India, being a social welfare state, has expressly provided under Article 15(3) of the Constitution for the enactment of special laws concerning women and children.

Consequently, maintenance rights have been provided under Section 125 of the CrPC (now Section 144 of the BNSS). The Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent ruling, authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna has reaffirmed the maintenance rights of Muslim Women in the case of Mohd Abdul Samad V. State of Telangana .It has emphatically declared that there can be nothing personal about the subjugation of women. The Court has reiterated the true essence of secularism, which not only means equal respect for all religions but also implies the equal application of laws to all people, regardless of their religion, especially when the aim is social justice.

The Apex Court has filled the much-needed void that existed after the Danial Latifi ruling. At later stages, the provisions and history of maintenance rights (especially with respect to Muslim women, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and the relevance of the recent ruling) will be discussed.

Maintenance for married women is provided under Section 125 of the Code, a secular law that applies equally to all religions (Now Section 144 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In the new criminal law, there are no substantial changes in the provisions of maintenance, and the core part remains intact. However, it was expected that the new provisions would specifically provide a swift timeline for maintenance petitions , especially with regards to interim maintenance.

The Provision provides a protective shield to wife whereby she can claim maintenance from her husband, in case he neglects to furnish the same. As per Muslim Personal Law, the husband was required to maintain the wife only till the Iddat Period following the Talaq.  However, the historic judgement of Shah Bano Begum V. Mohd. Ahmad Khan delivered in 1985 altered this position.  In this historic Shah Bano Begum v. Mohd. Ahmad Khan case, the rights of Muslim women to maintenance from their husbands after a divorce were upheld, going beyond the Muslim personal law-mandated Iddat period, which is typically three lunar months.

 This ruling sparked significant controversy within the community, prompting the then-government to introduce the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

Msulim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act, 1986 And Legal Challenges

According to Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, if a woman is unable to support herself, her former husband is required to provide her fair and reasonable maintenance throughout the Iddat term. She might ask her family members for maintenance after the Iddat period, and if they were unable to provide it, she could ask the Wakf Board. Many women found themselves in a vulnerable position as a result.

In the Danial Latifi v. Union of India case, the Act was contested on the basis that it was unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21. It was argued that the Act was only passed in order to overturn the Shah Bano decision. However, the Court used a novel interpretation to uphold the Act’s legitimacy. It concluded that a Muslim husband has an obligation to provide for his divorced wife’s future in a fair and reasonable manner, even after the Iddat time has passed.

Due to the ruling, the husband was obligated to make plans for the wife’s future during the Iddat Period, even if he was under no duty after that. The Supreme Court did not, however, establish a precedent on the protection of Muslim women under section 125 of the CrPC (Sec 144 of BNSS). Without a set legislation that would regulate all of her basic requirements after the Iddat Period, this left them in a state of despair.

Due to varying legal interpretations, some judges declined to give maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC (Sec 144 of BNSS), while others did. A divorced wife is entitled to reasonable and fair provision and maintenance during the Iddat period under the 1986 Act, but not under Section 125 of the CrPC (Sec 144 of BNSS) , the court ruled in Usman Khan Bahamani v. Fathimunnisa Begum and Others. This is unless both parties express their intention to be governed by the CrPC, as required by Section 5 of the Act.

Recent Supreme Court Triumph

In the latest ruling in the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, the Supreme Court, through a two-judge bench comprising Justice Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George, clarified that Muslim women have the right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC even beyond the Iddat period. This is not an act of courtesy, but a measure to provide social security to women at large. It is important to note that the recent ruling has invoked Section 125 of the CrPC, as the new criminal laws came into force on July 1, 2024, and have a prospective effect. As a result, they will not be applicable to cases filed before the date of enforcement.

The destitute wife in this case petitioned the family court, which granted her maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month. In the meanwhile, her spouse filed for divorce, arguing that the 1986 Act did not mandated maintenance. In light of this, The Telangana High Court lowered the maintenance to Rs. 10,000. The spouse then appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court made it clear that even though the 1986 Act is a unique piece of law, Section 125’s basic provisions are still in effect. The Court decided that Muslim women are entitled to maintenance from their husbands even beyond the Iddat era. The basic tenets of social security regulations would be broken if a certain group of women were denied maintenance only because of their religious convictions. The situation of Muslim women in relation to Muslim men with regard to maintenance requests will now be improved by this decision, which will set a precedent for other courts in India.

The question that now emerges is why it took so long for the courts to step in when a certain group of women had to adhere to less rights than women of other religions. Despite the fact that India is a secular nation and that the Constitution guarantees the basic right to freedom of religion, do laws that discriminate against a certain group of women pass the constitutionality test? Personal laws cannot be so individualised that they cause women to be subjugated. The Constitution should be the only legislation that governs a democratic nation like India. A legislation ought to be overturned if it violates the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, in Fuzlunbi v. Khader Vali and Another, opined that “Section 125 charges the court with a deliberate secular design to enforce maintenance or its equivalent, derived from the state’s responsibility of social welfare. It is not confined to members of one religion but applies to the entire community of womanhood.”

Conclusion

In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members”. The most recent Supreme Court ruling exemplifies this concept by restating that justice and equality are the cornerstones of a progressive society. It is an obvious call for the court to keep up its vigilant defence of everyone’s rights, regardless of personal laws or religious beliefs.

By ensuring that the obligations of Section 125 of the CrPC (Sec 144 of BNSS) are applied consistently, the Court has taken a significant step in protecting the social security and dignity of Muslim women. This supports the idea that the realm of justice cannot have any exceptions or exclusions. In the ruling of Rajnesh v. Neha, the Apex Court provided guidelines regarding alimony, including factors such as the status of the parties, the standard of living enjoyed by the wife in her matrimonial home, and her reasonable needs, which are required to be taken into consideration.

The landmark decision of Mohd. Abdul Samad not only strengthens India’s legal framework for women’s rights but also gives hope to all those who want to live in a society where equality and fairness are the norm. The court is vital as the guardian of the Constitution and must remain unwavering in its commitment to upholding the principles of justice and equality.


Author: Rajarshi Dwivedi is BALLB student at Presidency University, Bengaluru.



Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *