Supreme Court Rules on Maintenance Rights for Divorced Muslim Women
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr., ruled that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance from her ex-husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), in addition to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986. The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, dismissed a petition by a Muslim man against an order directing him to pay interim maintenance to his ex-wife under Section 125 CrPC.
Key Points of the Judgment:
1. Applicability of Section 125 CrPC:
o Section 125 CrPC applies to all married and divorced women, including Muslims.
o Muslim women divorced under the Special Marriage Act can seek maintenance under both the CrPC and the Special Marriage Act.
o Muslim women divorced under Muslim law can choose to seek maintenance under either Section 125 CrPC or the 1986 Act, or both.
2. Concurrent Remedies:
o Justice Masih emphasized that the 1986 Act supplements Section 125 CrPC, allowing Muslim women to seek maintenance under both laws.
o Justice Nagarathna stated that the 1986 Act does not override Section 125 CrPC and both provisions can coexist.
3. Triple Talaq and Maintenance:
o Muslim women divorced via triple talaq, deemed void and illegal, can also claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Background:
The case involved a petition from a Muslim husband challenging an order for interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Senior Advocate S Wasim A Qadri, representing the petitioner, argued that the 1986 Act provided more comprehensive benefits than Section 125 CrPC, including provisions for mehr, dower, and property return. He contended that the 1986 Act, being special legislation, should prevail over the general CrPC.
However, Amicus and Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal argued that the 1986 Act broadens the scope of Muslim personal law but does not exclude the application of Section 125 CrPC. He cited previous judgments indicating that both laws provide concurrent remedies for divorced Muslim women.
Court Observations:
The court observed that the 1986 Act begins with a non-obstante clause, indicating it is an additional remedy rather than a substitute for Section 125 CrPC. The bench noted that the absence of explicit language barring Section 125 CrPC in the 1986 Act implies that both remedies are available to divorced Muslim women.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's ruling confirms that divorced Muslim women can seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC alongside the 1986 Act. This ensures that their right to maintenance is not limited by religious personal laws, aligning with the principles of equality and non-discrimination under the Indian Constitution.