Authored By: Bhoomi Panjwani
Amity University Gwalior Madhya Pradesh
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum 1985 2 SCC 556 India
- Supreme Court case
- Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud authored the judgement
- Constitution Bench of 5 judges
- The judgement was passed on 23 April 1985
Parties involved
Mohd. Ahmed Khan ( Petitioner/ Appellant)
- The appellant was a well known advocate in Indore M.P
- He was married to Shah Bano Begum in 1932. After living together for decades and having 5 children he announced divorce through triple talaq
- He contested the claim for maintenance under the muslim law as muslim personal the liability ends after paying iddat ( support during 3 month waiting period ).
Shah Bano Begum ( Respondent )
- Shah Bano was a 62 year old muslim woman
- She challenged her husband under Section 125 of the CrPC claiming she had no means to support herself after the divorce and was financially dependent on her husband for decades.
- She challenged the Muslim personal law and fought for legal recognition of the muslim women and right to maintenance after divorce.
Facts of the case
- Mohd. Ahmed Khan was an advocate in Indore and married Shah Bano in 1932 later the couple had 5 children and marriage sustained for decades.
- However in 1975 Shah Bano was thrown out by her husband and later in 1978 he announced divorce by following muslim personal law procedure of triple talaq.
- He denied maintenance and was backed by the muslim personal law
- Later Shah Bano filed a case under section 125 of CrPC as she was unable to maintain herself hence seeking Rs 500 per month.
- The magistrate ordered Khan to pay Rs 25 per month .
- Further appeal at the High Court of Madhya Pradesh announced the enhanced amount of Rs 179 per month
- Khan appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that muslim law doesn’t grant any maintenance after paying iddat .
Issues raised
- Whether Section 125 of CrPC 1973 apply to Muslims or is it overridden by Muslim personal law ?
- Does the husband is liable to pay maintenance if the wife is financially dependent after the divorce despite paying the iddat?
- Does the term “wife” under section 125 include a divorced woman who has not remarried?
- Whether denying maintenance to divorced muslim woman violate her rights under the constitution of india under article 14,15 and 21 of it?
Arguments of the parties
Petitioner/ Appellant
Mohd. Khan argued and claimed the supremacy of personal law over the matters of family law and thus emphasized the overriding of personal law over the CrPC Also stating that he is relived of any liability and the only liability that was on him was of iddat which was already granted to Shah Bano.
He lawfully divorced his wife and thus has no obligations towards her. He also asserted that section 127(3)(b) of the CrPC exempts a muslim husband from being liable for maintenance if he has made a reasonable provision under personal law.
Contended that imposing CrPC obligations beyond iddat would interfere with muslim personal law protected under the constitution.
Arguments of Respondent
The respondent stressed on the application of CrPC claimimg that section 125 is a secular provision applicable to all citizens.
She was unable to maintain herself and deserved financial support beyond iddat for survival.
Emphasized that section 125 is a social welfare legislation intended to prevent destitution and denying maintenances infringes her rights under article 14,15 and 21 of the constitution of india.
Judgement of the case
The court held the supremacy of section 125 of CrPC and upheld that it is religion neutral and applies to all citizens of India.
A muslim man is liable for maintenance beyond the parameters of iddat if she is not able to maintain herself and remained financially dependent on her husband throughout the marriage.
The court interpreted ‘wife’ under the section 125 to include a divorced woman who has not remarried. Personal law can not override the rights of a woman or a citizen under the constitutional provisions and a Muslim woman can claim maintenance under secular criminal law overriding the personal law .
The supreme court upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict and dismissed the appeal directing Mohd. Ahmed Khan to pay Rs 179.20 as maintenance to Shah Bano.
Ratio Decidendi
- Section 125 of CrPC is secular and applicable to all the citizens of india and is welfare oriented legislation
- Interpretation of “wife’ under section 125 in legal aspect to clear the confusion arise in front of court after divorce.
- Personal laws cannot override provisions of criminal law and rights of a citizen are protected beyond personal laws statutes. Hence stating the supremacy of law .
Conclusion
This case serves as a landmark judgement as it laid down the interpretation of whether the criminal law can override the personal laws . It also stated the secular aspect of the law and rights of the citizens are above the subjects of personal law .
It upheld the jurisprudence of natural justice and judicial activism and the judge’s interpretation of statutes .