Danial Latifi v. Union of India
A Muslim husband must make, within the iddat period, a reasonable and fair provision for his divorced wife's whole future life; so read, the 1986 Act is valid.
Facts
The constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — enacted to undo Shah Bano (AIR 1985 SC 945) — was challenged as discriminatory and depriving divorced Muslim women of the secular protection of Section 125 CrPC available to all other women. Petitioners argued the Act confined the husband's liability to the iddat period and then pushed the destitute woman to relatives or the Wakf Board.
Issues
- Whether the 1986 Act is constitutionally valid under Articles 14, 15 and 21
- Whether a Muslim husband's liability under Section 3(1)(a) is confined to the iddat period or extends to a fair provision for the wife's future
Arguments
Petitioners (Hingorani, Jaising, Singhvi): the Act discriminates against Muslim women, denies them the secular vagrancy-prevention remedy of Section 125, and is void under Articles 14/15/21. Respondents (Union, Muslim Personal Law Board): personal law is a legitimate basis for differentiation, liability is limited to iddat, and the Act preserves Muslim personal law.
Held
The Court read Section 3(1)(a) to require the husband to make a 'reasonable and fair provision and maintenance' WITHIN the iddat period that nonetheless covers the wife's entire future until remarriage, treating 'provision' and 'maintenance' as two distinct obligations. So construed, the Act actually codifies the Shah Bano rationale rather than reversing it, and provides relief no less beneficial than Section 125 CrPC. To uphold validity the Court adopted the construction that saves the statute, and held the Act does not offend Articles 14, 15 or 21.
Ratio decidendi
A divorced Muslim woman is entitled under Section 3(1)(a) of the 1986 Act to a reasonable and fair provision for her future, extending beyond iddat, to be settled within the iddat period; the Act is constitutional when so interpreted.
Significance
Landmark Constitution Bench that salvaged the 1986 Act by harmonising it with Shah Bano and Section 125's anti-vagrancy purpose, ensuring divorced Muslim women retain a lifetime maintenance right. Followed and applied in Iqbal Bano, Shabana Bano (2010) and Khatoon Nisa.
Related
Test yourself on Family Law. Application-level MCQs with instant scoring.
Source: /Users/tiwari/Documents/All Law Books/raw/Hindu law/CHAPTER-35-Danial-Latifi-v-Union-of-India.md
