Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Others (1985 AIR 945)
| Case Name: | Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Others |
| Equivalent Citation: | 1985 AIR 945, 1985 SCR (3) 844. |
| Date Of Judgement: | 23 April 1985 |
| Court: | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number: | Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1981. |
| Appellant | Mohd. Ahmed Khan |
| Respondent: | Shah Bano Begum & Ors. |
| Bench | Y. C. Chandrachud (CJ), Rangath Misra, D. A. Desai, O. Chinnappa Reddy, E. S. Venkataramiah |
| Statues Referred | Section 125 and Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure |
Facts of the Case:
Mohd. Ahmed Khan, the appellant, was an advocate by profession. He was married to Shah Bano Begum, the respondent in 1932. They had three sons and two daughters.
After 14 years, Khan married his second wife, who was younger. He lived with both his wives for years.
In 1975, when the respondent, Shah Bano who was 62 years old, was disowned by her husband, the appellant, and forced out of the matrimonial home along with her children.
In April 1978, the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance of Rs. 500 per month. She claimed that her husband abandoned her from monthly maintenance of Rs. 200 which he promised to give.
On November 6, 1978, the appellant divorced the respondent and dissolved the marriage by pronouncing a triple talaq (divorce on the triple utterance of the word “talaq” by a Muslim husband). He argued that he had no obligation to provide maintenance.
The appellant claimed that he had already paid maintenance of Rs. 200 per month for two years and had deposited Rs. 3,000 as “dower or Mahr” (money/valuable property promised to a Muslim woman for her financial security under the marriage) during the period of “iddat.” (a period of 3 months that a Muslim woman has to observe before she can remarry after her divorce).
In August 1979, the Magistrate directed the appellant to pay Rs. 25 per month as maintenance to the respondent.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in a revisional application filed by the respondent, enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 179.20 per month.
Mohd. Ahmed Khan, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court.
Issues:
Whether a Muslim husband’s obligation to provide maintenance for a divorced wife is in or not in the conflict between section 125 and Muslim Personal Law?
Whether Mehar/Dower be deemed as a “sum payable on divorce”? Criminal Procedure Code (II of 1974), Section 127(3) (b).
Contentions of the Appellant (Husband):
The appellant argued that he had divorced the respondent through an irrevocable “talaq” and therefore, he was not obligated to provide maintenance.
The appellant asserted that he had previously met his financial obligations to the respondent by paying maintenance of Rs. 200 per month for the previous two years.
Khan argued that Shah Bano’s claim for maintenance should be dismissed as she had received the amount due to her divorce under the Muslim personal law.
The appellant argued that, in light of his income and the facts of the case, the Magistrate’s ruling and the High Court’s subsequent enhancement were excessive and unreasonable.
The appellant questioned the validity and applicability of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Muslims, arguing that it went against the protection of Muslim personal law and the concept of divorce as per Islamic principles.
The appellant sought the reconsideration of earlier Supreme Court decisions that held that Section 125 applied to Muslims and that divorced Muslim wives were entitled to maintenance.
Contentions of the Respondent (Wife):
The petitioner argued that she was entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code. She contended that these provisions applied to all citizens regardless of their religion and should be applicable in her case.
Shah Bano emphasized that denying her maintenance solely based on her religion violated her fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. She argued for equal treatment and protection under the law, highlighting the importance of gender equality and non-discrimination.
The petitioner presented the hardships faced by divorced Muslim women who were often left financially vulnerable due to the practice of instant divorce (triple talaq) under Muslim personal law. She sought maintenance as a means of financial support to address her destitute condition after divorce.
Judgement:
The verdict was given by C.J., Y.C. Chandrachud, and the appeal of Mohd. Ahmed Khan was dismissed.
The decisions rendered in both cases of Bai Tahira and Fazlunbi, which established that divorced Muslim women are subject to the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were regarded as accurate, with the exception of a specific remark made in Bai Tahira regarding the payment of “Mahr” money. In accordance with Section 125 of the Code, the court recognized the right of a divorced Muslim woman to request maintenance. No matter a person’s religion, the court emphasized that Section 125’s goal is to offer them an immediate and straightforward remedy if they are unable to provide for themselves.
The court determined that there are no words of limitation in Clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 125(1) of the Code, which defines “wife” as including a divorced wife, to exclude Muslim women from its purview. It was stated that regardless of the religion practiced by the neglected wife or her husband, Section 125’s obligation to provide maintenance still applies.
The court highlighted that the application of Section 125 is not restricted to specific religious groups or classes but is applicable to all individuals in need, regardless of their personal laws.
The argument that Muslim personal law only required a husband to support his divorced wife during the iddat period was rejected by the court. It said that the circumstance envisioned by Section 125 of the Code is not contemplated or permitted by Muslim personal law. The court made it clear that in order to evaluate the husband’s obligation to pay maintenance under Muslim personal law, the complete body of Muslim personal law as well as the particulars of the case must be taken into account.
The court referred to the teachings of the Holy Quran and highlighted the obligation on Muslim husbands to make provision for or provide maintenance to their divorced wives.
The court mentioned that Section 125 overrides personal laws if there is any conflict between the two, as seen in the explanation to the second proviso of Section 125(3) of the Code.
On the basis of the clause in Section 127(3)(b), the appellant in the case contended that the respondent’s application for maintenance should be denied. The court, however, rejected this claim and examined the definition of Mahr (dower) in Muslim personal law to see if it met the requirements to be considered a payment due upon divorce.
The court reached the conclusion that Mahr is not a sum due upon divorce. The article noted that mahr is a sum of money that the husband must pay to the wife as a sign of respect for their union, and that divorce ends a marriage. Any payment made out of respect cannot therefore be regarded as a payment due upon divorce.
CONCLUSION:
The Shah Bano case was a significant legal turning point in defining the rights of Muslim divorced women in India.
The controversies surrounding this case resulted in the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which allowed Muslim women to receive a significant, one-time payment from their husbands during the period of Iddat instead of a maximum monthly payment of 500 – an upper limit that has since been eliminated.
C.J Chandrachud while giving judgment stated the need to implement article 44 of the Directive Principles in the Constitution, which directs the state to provide for its citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.
Overall, the Shah Bano decision strengthened the notions of equality and justice in maintenance proceedings and had broad repercussions for the rights and entitlements of divorced Muslim women.
Shobhita Shrivastava, a student of KES Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College, 4th semester, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments