Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)

Citation: AIR 1985 SC 945

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice V.D. Tulzapurkar, Justice Ranganath Misra, Justice D.A. Desai, and Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy

1. Introduction

The most important judgments of Indian legal history are in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum. Primarily, it tries to look into the rights of Muslim women to claim maintenance after divorce under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It sparked a very important debate on secularism, women’s rights, and the application of personal laws in India. The case, decided by the Supreme Court in 1985, established the proposition that Muslim women could have their right to claim maintenance under the CrPC. This left the provisions of Islamic law aside, creating nationwide controversy that went on to affect the next set of legislative changes. So under the judgment passed, there came the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, to meet the concerns raised by various religious groups.

2. Background

This petitioner is Shah Bano Begum, who happens to be a respondent in the case. She had been married to Mohd. Ahmed Khan for more than 40 years and bore him five children. In 1975, this divorce was pronounced by Mohd. Ahmed Khan upon her by giving her triple talaq. After divorcing him, she did not get any kind of financial support and filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for the award of a monthly allowance of Rs 500. She was 62 years old at that time and did not have any independent source of income.

Under Section 125 CrPC, being a secular provision, every person who is able to maintain himself shall maintain his wife, children, or parents who are unable to support themselves. Therefore, she contended that she is entitled to maintenance from her former husband, for she has no source of income being a divorced woman.

While, on the other hand, Mohd. Ahmed Khan contended that he had discharged all his liabilities under Islamic law as he had provided a dower (mehr) at the time of the divorce and he also maintained the applicant during the iddat period of three months after the divorce. According to him, under Islamic law, his liability ended with the iddat period, and, therefore, he was not liable to provide further maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.

3. Legal Framework

Before discussing the judgment of the court, some clarifications and details about the legal framework at issue are needed:

• Section 125 of the CrPC: The section provides a secular law, applicable equally to all citizens, regardless of religion, caste, or creed. It aims at checking vagrancy and destitution by compelling those able-bodied persons who are supposed to maintain their dependents-including a divorced wife unable to support herself.
• Personal Law vs. Secular Law: Muslim personal law, under Sharia, lays down that the husbandly financial obligation towards his wife comes to an end after the iddat period after which the husband becomes obligated to provide maintenance. However, beyond this period, no such liability exists unless otherwise agreed upon in the marriage contract or voluntarily undertaken by the husband.

4. Issues Before the Court

The moot question before the Supreme Court was whether a Muslim husband is obliged to make maintenance payable to his divorced wife over and above the period of iddat under Section 125 CrPC or that liability was subject always to Islamic personal law.

Secondary issues involved:

Does the application of section 125 violate the rights of Muslim women under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution entitled to personal law which mandates their being governed?

• Does the application of section 125 to Muslim women contravene the principles of Sharia law and other practices of Islam?

5. Arguments by the Parties

• Shah Bano Begum (Appellant, Respondent):

She pleaded that Section 125 CrPC is a secular provision that looks after women due to their lack of religious identity. She informed me that she did not have any source of income and was therefore entitled to maintenance even after the iddat period.

o She contended that a divorced woman ought to be granted maintenance until such time that she either remarries or has sufficient other means to work, and this is not supposed to be based on her religion, as contemplated by the CrPC.

• Mohd. Ahmed Khan (Appellant):

He asserted his obligation to pay for maintenance terminated upon the expiration of the iddat period under Muslim personal law. He emphasized that the applicable Islamic law unambiguously limited a husband’s obligation to support the wife after divorce to such a period of waiting.

He added that invoking Section 125 CrPC on Muslim women violates the rights of the community to be governed according to its religious as well as personal law. He said that such an imposition would, therefore, amount to an unconstitutional step, since it would violate Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.

6. Judgment

In a landmark decision, the apex court held that Section 125 of the CrPC is applicable to all Indian citizens irrespective of their religion and such a provision would override the personal laws in case of a clash. The court further ruled that Shah Bano is entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 even after the iddat period if she cannot maintain herself.

Key Points of the Judgment:

• The Absolute Section 125 CrPC: Held that the provision is a law that is absolutely secular, one that prevents destitution and vagrancy. It would apply indifferently to all citizens, including Muslims. Personal laws cannot prevail where there is a contradiction between the objectives and personal laws.
• Constitutional Interpretation: The court held that the statutory rights to personal liberty under Article 25 are vested but must be balanced with Articles 14, Right to Equality, and Article 21, Right to Life. It made it clear that a dignified life for every citizen prevails over the refusal to give maintenance to a Muslim woman.
• Construing the Islamic Jurisprudence: The court referred to Quranic verses and Islamic precepts to hold that Muslim law does not absolutely prohibit maintenance after the expiry of the iddat period. According to the court, Section 125 CrPC could well be reconciled with the principles of Islam to promote the welfare and dignity of women.
• Gender Justice and Social Equality: The Supreme Court cited denial of maintenance to Muslim women as an exercise in discrimination and, thus was against social justice and equality. The verdict was towards strengthening the argument that women of any religion have a right to seek maintenance if they are incapable of supporting themselves after divorce.

7. Implications and Reaction

The judgment raised heavy debates in Muslim groups, who considered it interference in their religious personal laws. Conservatives argued that it infringed upon the constitutional right to the free practice and profession of religion. Innumerable said that the judgment encroached on the very sanctity of Sharia law; hence there were widespread protests demanding the government to reverse the judgement.

The then government led by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was facing immense pressure from Muslim organizations and clerics. In consequence, Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 that attempted to undo the Shah Bano judgment. The Act limited the liability of a Muslim husband providing maintenance only for the iddat period, and then it left it upon her to the relatives or Wakf Board thereafter.

8. Analysis of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986

The Act was an attempt on the part of the legislator to placate the conservative sections of the Muslim community. It, however, was bitterly criticized as being retrogressive and discriminatory:

• Dilution of women’s rights: Critic critics argued that the Act curtailed the rights of Muslim women who were further exposed to poverty and destitution in post-divorce lives. It was nothing but a move backward on women’s rights, given the progressive intent of the Shah Bano judgment.
• Debatable Issues on Secularism and Personal Law: In the Shah Bano judgment, it is revealed that Indian secular law and religious personal laws have a complex relationship. The Article 44 of the Indian Constitution’s Uniform Civil Code (UCC) debate had already begun, and now this judgment put a stamp on its applicability or inapplicability. The debate went further, as it declared that a common law would avoid this kind of conflict arising between different sets of personal laws. A uniform code of law would have been beneficial in overcoming gender injustice among all communities.

9. Significance of the Judgment

The Shah Bano case remains a landmark case in Indian legal and social history for the following reasons:

• Advance in Women’s Rights: The judgment was a positive step forward, ensuring that not just women belonging to the dominant religion would be left bare after divorce. It acted as a reminder to the state to ensure social responsibility in the kind of citizens’ welfare and appealed for the reconsideration of personal laws with respect to constitutional values in the light of it.
• Judicial Activism and Constitutional Supremacy: This judgment was a tale of judicial activism because the Supreme Court upheld and gave primacy to constitutional principles of equality and dignity over personal laws. What came out of this judgment reaffirmed the general notion that constitutional law takes precedence over religious or personal laws where the latter comes into conflict with the former.
• Public and Political Response: The happenings after judgment and the passage of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act threw light on how religion and politics were involved in Indian legislation. The government, by passing the Act, seemed to be appeasing the conservative groups.