Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum

Facts

Shah Bano, married about 43 years and mother of five children, was thrown out of her husband's home and her maintenance stopped; she petitioned under Section 125 CrPC. The husband, a prosperous advocate, then pronounced triple talaq, paid deferred mahr and iddat-period maintenance, and claimed his obligation had ended. The Magistrate granted a small sum, the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 179 per month, and the husband appealed.

Issues

• Whether a divorced Muslim woman unable to maintain herself can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC beyond the iddat period.
• Whether payment of mahr/dower is a 'sum payable on divorce' under Section 127(3)(b) CrPC that discharges the husband's liability.

Arguments

The husband argued that Muslim personal law limited his liability to mahr and iddat-period maintenance and that Section 127(3)(b) statutorily recognised this, excluding him from Section 125. Interveners and the wife argued that Section 125 is a secular provision against vagrancy applying to all religions and that the Quran (Suras 241-42, 'mata') obliges provision for the divorced wife.

Held

The Constitution Bench held that Section 125 CrPC, being a secular measure to prevent vagrancy, overrides personal law and applies to a divorced Muslim wife unable to maintain herself even after iddat. Mahr is connected with marriage rather than being a sum payable 'on divorce' so as to absolve the husband under Section 127(3)(b); at most it is a resource to be taken into account. The Court further held that the Holy Quran itself imposes an obligation on the husband to make provision (mata) for the divorced wife. The husband's appeal was dismissed.

Ratio decidendi

Section 125 CrPC applies regardless of religion; a divorced Muslim woman unable to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance beyond iddat, and payment of mahr does not by itself extinguish that liability under Section 127(3)(b).

Significance

Foundational and politically momentous judgment on Muslim divorcee maintenance; the controversy it generated led Parliament to enact the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, whose validity was later upheld — while its rationale was preserved — in Danial Latifi v. Union of India.

Related