Muslim woman can demand maintenance from husband under Section 125 of CrPC: Supreme Court

News Network
July 10, 2024

muslimSC.jpg

The Supreme Court today (July 10, 2024) held that a Muslim woman is entitled to file a petition for maintenance against her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih dismissed a petition filed by a Muslim man's plea against the direction to pay interim maintenance to his divorced wife under Section 125 CrPC. The Court held that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 will not prevail over the secular law.

Justices Nagarathna and Masih delivered separate but concurring judgments.

"We are dismissing the criminal appeal with the conclusion that Section 125 CrPC would be applicable to all women and not just married women," Justice Nagarathna stated.

The bench clarified that if during the pendency of a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC a Muslim woman is divorced, then she can take recourse to the Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019. The bench stated that the remedy under the 2019 Act is in addition to the remedy under Section 125 CrPC.

Background

For a comprehensive understanding of the facts of the case and the issue involved, click here.

Senior Advocate S Wasim A Qadri, appearing for the petitioner-husband, raised the following contentions:

(A) The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 Act ("Act") is a special law in the nature of beneficial legislation, which provides way more than what Section 125 CrPC contemplates. Besides maintenance, Section 3 of the Act also deals with mehr, dower and return of property. Under the Act, a "reasonable and fair" provision is also made for the divorced woman's entire life, but the same is not contemplated under Section 125 CrPC. Moreover, if the divorced woman has sufficient means, she cannot file for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, however, that is the case with Section 3 of the Act.

(B) To the legal position flowing from Mohd Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, factum of divorce was not relevant and every Muslim woman was entitled to maintain a Section 125 CrPC petition. To upset this ruling, the Act was enacted and it codified the Supreme Court judgment. The Act is a complete code in itself and a reading of its provisions would show that it was intended to have an overriding effect over Section 125 CrPC. While it makes provisions for "divorced" Muslim women, deserted or neglected Muslim women may resort to Section 125 CrPC.

(C) It is a settled position of law that special law (the Act) shall prevail over general law (CrPC). Language of the Act being clear, there is no reason for the Court to go beyond. It must simply give effect to what is stated in the Act.

(D) Section 5 gives an option to the divorced couple to not be governed by the Act. This shows that a Muslim wife cannot resort to both remedies.

(E) As per Section 7 of the Act, a Section 125 CrPC petition pending at the time of commencement of the Act was to be disposed of by the Magistrate in terms of Section 3 of the Act. This shows that the ambit of Section 125 CrPC in these petitions was to be interpreted in light of provisions of the Act, read with Section 5 CrPC (which excludes applicability of CrPC provisions when there is a special provision).

(F) Under doctrine of implied repeal, the Parliament is presumed to know pre-existing law and won't intend to create any confusion by retaining conflicting provisions. In applying this doctrine, Court must give effect to legislative intent of the two enactments (CrPC and the Act).

Amicus and Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, on the other hand, put forth the following submissions:

(A) The Act only concretizes Muslim personal law. It broadens a divorced Muslim woman's entitlement to maintenance beyond the iddat period, but does not take away the relief available to her under Section 125 CrPC because the purpose behind the latter is different.

(B) The petitioner's reliance on Section 5 of the Act is misplaced, as that provision comes into play when an application has been filed under Section 3 of the Act. In the present case, the respondent-wife had approached the Court under Section 125 CrPC.

(C) Section 7 of the Act is only a transitional provision. If an application was pending under Section 125 CrPC on the date of commencement of the Act, it was to be subsequently governed by Section 3. However, that does not mean that Section 125 CrPC petitions could no longer be filed.

(D) In Danial Latifi & Anr v. Union Of India, Supreme Court only dealt with validity of the Act. Though the validity of provisions of the Act was upheld, the Bench questioned in the said case as to how it could deprive Muslim divorced women the same right which is available to other women in the country.

(E) As per Section 127(3)(b) CrPC, if some provision has been made under personal law, a husband may avoid liability for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. It would be for Courts to record a fact-finding in this regard.

(F) Different High Courts have taken different views, so clarity on the issue has become necessary. Judgments that are no longer good law may be declared as such. Kerala High Court has taken a view both Section 125 (CrPC) petition and Section 3 (1986 Act) petition are maintainable, but a woman has to choose between one of the two. But this position is not correct.

Before conclusion of arguments, the Amicus also pointed to a scenario where a divorced Muslim woman may accept provision made under personal law for her entire life, but later realize that it was not sufficient. In that case, she can only approach under Section 125 CrPC and not under Section 3 of the Act. As such, she should not have to choose between the two remedies and must be entitled to both.

Court Observations during the hearing

During the hearing, the Bench remarked that Section 3 of the Act begins with a non-obstante clause. As such, it is not in derogation to what is already provided under Section 125 CrPC, but an additional remedy.

Justice Masih said : "this Act does not bar...it is the choice of the person who had applied or moved an application under 125...there is no statutory provision provided under the Act of 1986 which says that 125 is not maintainable". Concurring, Justice Nagarathna said that there was nothing in the 1986 law which barred one remedy in favor of the other.

When the Bench enquired as to whether the present petitioner had paid anything to the respondent-wife during the iddat period, answer was given in the negative. The Amicus clarified that a draft of Rs.15,000 was tendered by the petitioner during the iddat period, but the same was not claimed by the respondent-wife. Taking into account the same, the Bench said that it would still have been understandable if the petitioner had made provision for the wife during the iddat period, as in that case, Section 127(3)(b) CrPC may have come into play.

Responding to the petitioner's submission that none of the judgments cited by either side had dealt with Section 7 of the Act, Nagarathna J said that the provision was only with regard to pending cases (and thus, transitory). Countering the contention, the Amicus drew attention of the Court to a Kerala High Court judgment which considered Section 7 and held that it could not be interpreted as extinguishing the right of divorced Muslim women to file petitions under Section 125 CrPC.

Notably, the Kerala High Court (in the judgment cited by the Amicus) was of the view that the transitory provision was intended to do away with the necessity of Muslim women, who had Section 125 CrPC petitions pending at the time of commencement of the Act, having to file fresh claims under Section 3 of the special law. To quote the Bench,

"If the Parliament had the intention to extinguish such rights of the Muslim woman, it would only be reasonable to expect the Parliament to speak in definite and specific language about such extinguishment. Parliament must have been aware that when 1986 Act was enacted, number of orders must have passed in favor of divorced Muslim women under Section 125...Message appears to us to be loud and clear...Both rights, under Section 125 of the Code and Section 3 were conferred on the divorced women. She has the right to choose."

As against the petitioner's submission that the provisions of the Act indicate Parliament's intent to bar entitlement of Muslim women to file maintenance claims under Section 125 CrPC, the Court expressed an opinion that the same would be unconstitutional.

If the Parliament intended for divorced Muslim women to no longer be entitled to file petitions under Section 125 CrPC from the date of commencement of the Act, it could have explicitly given an overriding effect to the Act, the Bench remarked. To quote Nagarathna J, "In the absence of such a thing, can we add a restriction to the Act? That is the point".

After hearing the submissions of both the Senior Advocates, the judgment was reserved on February 19.

Counsels for petitioner-husband: Senior Advocate S Wasim A Qadri; Advocates Saeed Qadri, Saahil Gupta, Deepak Bhati and Shivendra Singh; AOR Udita Singh

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 13,2025

shelling.jpg

Srinagar: Following an unprecedented episode of intense cross-border shelling by the Pakistan Army that directly targeted the towns of Rajouri and Poonch in Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian government is moving to construct community bunkers in these towns and other vulnerable areas along the Line of Control (LoC).

While the government has, over the past decade, supported the construction of both individual and community bunkers along the LoC and the International Border (IB), towns like Rajouri and Poonch had been excluded from such initiatives. These towns were considered safe, as previous shelling incidents were largely restricted to forward villages closer to the border.

Officials now say the latest shelling marks a dangerous shift in the pattern of cross-border hostilities.

“The nature and intensity of the attack marked a significant departure from past ceasefire violations. For the first time in years, heavily populated towns like Rajouri and Poonch were directly hit,” a senior official said.

Caught unprepared, residents in both towns had little access to protective infrastructure as long-range mortar shells struck deep inside civilian areas.

“People weren’t expecting this—these towns had never been targeted before. Without bunkers, many had nowhere to go for safety,” the official added.

In response, the government now plans to build community bunkers at strategic locations throughout Rajouri and Poonch. These reinforced shelters will offer immediate protection to civilians during any future shelling incidents.

“In areas where individual bunkers aren't viable, community shelters become essential. These will provide residents with quick access to safety in emergencies,” the official noted.

The attacks have left local communities rattled.

“This is the first time shells landed so close to our homes in Poonch town,” said Abdul Rashid, a resident. “We never thought this would happen here.”

The sudden escalation has disrupted the fragile calm along the LoC, raising concerns over a potential return to more violent confrontations in the region.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 11,2025

pope.jpg

Appealing to the world's major powers for "no more war", Pope Leo on Sunday welcomed the ceasefire between India and Pakistan and hoped negotiations can lead to lasting peace, reported Reuters. Pope Leo prayed god will give world 'miracle of peace'. 

Pope Leo XIV, born Robert Francis Prevost, reportedly also called for peace in Ukraine, ceasefire and release of hostages in Gaza in his first Sunday noon appeal since his election as pontiff.

The new pope was elected on May 8, succeeding Pope Francis who died on April 21. 

“Never again war!” Pope Leo said from the loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica.

After over three days of intense exchange of fire, India and Pakistan on Saturday reached an ‘understanding’ to immediately stop all firing and military action on land, air and sea. The ceasefire, which was first announced by US President Donald Trump on Saturday, was violated by Pakistan hours later with drones being intercepted over parts of Jammu, Srinagar, Punjab and Rajasthan.

The military confrontation erupted after Islamabad launched drones and missiles towards the Indian territory, responding to the Operation Sindoor military strikes carried out by New Delhi on nine terror infrastructures in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7.

Operation Sindoor was launched in retaliation to the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam in which terrorists found to have links with Pakistan killed 26 civilians.

‘Third world war in pieces’

The 69-year-old Chicago-born missionary is the 267th pope and also the first American to hold the religious leadership title. 

Marking the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, Leo echoed Pope Francis's words, condemning the many conflicts plaguing the world today as a “third world war in pieces.”

Pope Leo also noted that this Sunday was Mother's Day in many countries, extending warm wishes to all mothers — “including those in heaven.”

The atmosphere turned jubilant as the crowd, joined by marching bands visiting for the special Jubilee weekend, broke into cheers and music while the bells of St. Peter's Basilica rang out.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 14,2025

colonelsofia.jpg

Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday ordered registration of an FIR against state minister Vijay Shah for his controversial remarks targeted at Colonel Sofia Qureshi.

Colonel Qureshi had conducted regular press briefings, sharing details of the 'Operation Sindoor' launched by Indian armed forces to strike terrorists, joined by Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh Shah.

The tribal affairs minister and BJP leader, sparked a major controversy with objectionable comments that appeared to be directed at Colonel Qureshi, whom he tried to project as a "sister of terrorists".

Taking suo motu cognisance of the controversial statement, the high court's division bench of Justices Atul Shridharan and Anuradha Shukla ordered the police to register a first information report (FIR) against the minister.

The court directed the police department to file the FIR by 6 pm on Wednesday.

The division bench said the court should be informed about the registration of the FIR.

The next hearing on the petition has been scheduled at 10.30 am on Thursday. A detailed order is awaited.

“Those people (terrorists) who had wiped out the sindoor (vermilion) of our sisters (in the Pahalgam terror attack)... we avenged these people by sending their sister to destroy them. They (terrorists) killed our Hindu brothers. PM Modi ji responded by sending their (terrorists’) sister in an Army plane to strike them in their houses. They (terrorists) made our sisters widows, so Modiji sent the sister of their community to strip them and teach them a lesson”, Mr. Shah said while addressing a gathering in Ramkunda village near Indore.

Shah's remarks drew wide-scale condemnation, with Congress demanding his immediate dismissal from the MP cabinet.

Under severe flak, Shah said if anyone is hurt by his statement, he is ready to apologise 10 times, adding that he respects Colonel Qureshi more than his sister.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.