Mohamed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
R. Kavi Priya Roy
Bharath Institute of Law
This Case Commentary is written by R. Kavi Priya Roy, a Third-year law student of Bharath Institute of Law
HONORABLE COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EQUIVALENT CITATION: AIR 1985 SC
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: APRIL 23, 1985
CASE NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL NUMBER 7454 OF 1981
CASE TYPE: CIVIL APPEAL
PETITIONER: MOHD AHMED KHAN
RESPONDENT: SHAH BANO BEGUM AND OTHERS
BENCH: CHIEF JUSTICE Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, JUSTICE D.A. DESAI JUSTICE O. CINNA REDDY, JUSTICE R.S. PATHAK, AND JUSTICE M. HAMEE-DULLAH BEG
FACTS:
The respondent, Shah Bano Begum, was married to Mohd Ahmed Khan (the appealing party), a lawyer by trade, in 1932. The couple had three sons and two daughters together. Shah Bano, then sixty-two years old, was kicked out of her marital house together with her kids in 1975 after being disowned by her husband. She filed an appeal in 1978 in front of the Indore Judicial Magistrate after being denied the Rs. 200 monthly support that he had promised to give her. She requested maintenance payments of Rs. 500 per month. On November 6, 1978, the husband then granted her an irreversible triple talaq and used that as justification for not making maintenance payments. The learned judge In August 1979 awarded full maintenance of 25 rupees per month for the husband. The wife In July 1908 the Court of the First Instance decided to raise the Japanese allowance to 30,000 baht or 179 baht per month. The High Court obliged her by nailing to her request. The husband then filed his special leave petition with the Supreme Court of India for the decision made at the High Court, it is one of the important landmark cases.
ISSUES:
1. Does the term "WIFE" in Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code (II of 1974) refer to a divorced Muslim woman as well and will barring it nullify personal law?
2. Does a Muslim husband's duty to pay maintenance to a former wife infringe on Section 125 and Muslim Personal Law?
3. How much is the money on divorce that is paid out by sub-section 3(b) of Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code (II of 1974), what exactly is the meaning of the Mehar or dower included in the sum paid on divorce?
CONTENTION OF PETITIONER:
Under the purview of Muslim Personal Law Board Maintenance: The petitioner in the Shah Bano case argued that the civil court had no authority to grant maintenance to a Muslim woman under Muslim Personal Law and that the Muslim Personal Law Board was responsible for maintenance to Muslim women.
SHARIAH LAWS: The petitioner argued that a Muslim husband was not required to support his divorced wife beyond the three-month iddat period, by the principles of Shariah Law as defined by the Muslim Personal Law Board.
INTERPRETATION OF THE QURAN: In the Shah Bano case, the petitioner contended that Muslim spouses were not required under the Quran to provide maintenance to their divorced wives after the iddat period.
INTERPRETATION OF THE QURAN: In the Shah Bano case, the petitioner contended that Muslim spouses were not required under the Quran to provide maintenance to their divorced wives after the iddat period.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIM HUSBANDS: The petitioner in the Shah Bano case argued that while post-iddat maintenance was not required of spouses of other religions, forcing Muslim husbands to furnish it was discriminatory against them.
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986: In the Shah Bano case, the respondent contended that this legislation, designed to counter the Supreme Court's ruling, was both constitutional and vital for the protection of the rights of Muslim women.
The interpretation of Quranic directives: The respondent argued that the Quranic principles regarding maintenance and divorce ought to be understood in a way that is compatible with modern standards of justice and fairness. They asserted that the Act was in harmony with Quranic teachings and sought to ensure that Muslim women were not left in a state of financial hardship following divorce.
SOCIALISM: The respondent asserted that the Act did not violate the principles of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution, emphasizing that its purpose was to safeguard the fundamental rights of Muslim women. Furthermore, they contended that the Act did not exhibit discrimination against Muslim men, as they remained obligated to provide maintenance to their divorced spouses in alignment with Quranic teachings.
JUDGEMENT:
The verdict was given by C.J., Y.C Chandrachud, and the appeal of Mohd. Ahmed Khan was dismissed.
Supreme Court said Section of the code applies to all citizens independent of their religion and consequently Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pertinent to Muslims as well, without any sort of discrimination. The court further stated that Section 125 overrides the personal law if there is any conflict between the two It makes clear that there is no strife between the provisions of Section 125 and those of the Muslim Personal Law on the address of the Muslim husband’s obligation to provide maintenance for a divorced wife who is incapable to maintain herself.
Supreme Court in this case duly held that since the obligation of a Muslim husband towards her divorced wife is restricted to the degree of” Iddat” period, indeed though this circumstance does not contemplate the rule of law that is said in Section 125 of CrPc., 1973 and subsequently the obligation of the husband to pay maintenance to the wife extends beyond the iddat period if the wife does not have sufficient means to maintain herself. It was further stated by the court that this rule according to Muslim Law was against humanity or was wrong because here a divorced wife was not in a condition to maintain herself. The payment of Mehar by the husband on divorce is not sufficient to exempt him from the duty to pay maintenance to the wife. After a long court procedure, the Supreme Court finally concluded that the husbands’ legal liability would come to an end if a divorced wife was competent to maintain herself. But this situation will be switched in the case when the wife is not in a condition to maintain herself after the Iddat period, she will be entitled to get maintenance or alimony under Section 125 of CrPC.
CONCLUSION:
Although the court's process took some time, its decision to dismiss the appeal is significant as it reinforces the integrity of the legal system and the trust of its constituents. This ruling has underscored the necessity of providing support to Muslim women who have divorced and find themselves unable to sustain themselves. The Shah Bano ruling faced considerable backlash from authoritative bodies because it was seen as conflicting with Islamic law. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court issued a fair ruling that ultimately maintained public trust in the legal system. This led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in 1986. Muslim wives received a significant lump sum payment from their husbands during the Iddat period instead of the previous maximum monthly payment of ₹500, a limit that has now been lifted.
REFERENCE:
1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/823221/