Divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a divorced Muslim woman can file a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against her former husband [Mohd Abdul Samad vs State of Telangana and Another]..A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih pronounced separate but concurring judgments upholding Muslim woman's right after a Muslim man (petitioner) challenged a Telangana High Court direction to pay ₹10,000 interim maintenance to his former wife."We are hereby dismissing the criminal appeal with the major conclusion that Section 125 CrPC would be applicable to all woman and not just married woman," Justice Nagarathna said pronouncing the verdict..In his judgment, Justice Masih said that right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and Section 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (1986 Act) exist parallelly and one does not exclude the other. "We are inclined to conclude that equivalent rights of maintenance ascertained under both, the secular provision of Section 125 of CrPC 1973, and the personal law provision of Section 3 of the 1986 Act, parallelly exist in their distinct domains and jurisprudence. Thereby, leading to their harmonious construction and continued existence of the right to seek maintenance for a divorced Muslim woman under the provisions of CrPC 1973 despite the enactment of the 1986 Act," Justice Masih said..In her judgment, Justice Nagarathna said that rights given to Muslim women under the 1986 Act were in addition to Section 125 CrPC. She clarified that Muslim women, who are divorced through the illegal method of triple talaq, are also entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC."A destitute Muslim woman has the right to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC despite the enactment of the 1986 Act. Thus, an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC would not prejudice another application under Section 3 of the 1986 Act insofar as the latter is additional in nature and does not pertain to the same requirements sought to be provided for by Section 125 of the CrPC. One cannot be a substitute for or supplant another; rather it is in addition to and not in derogation of the other," Justice Nagarathna observed..Background.The Supreme Court had in a landmark judgment in the Shah Bano case held that Section 125 CrPC is a secular provision applicable to Muslim women too.The same was however nullified by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and the validity of the law was upheld in 2001.The petition before the top court has raised grievance over the filing of a claims plea under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondent, a Muslim woman who was the wife of the petitioner before they got divorced.The matter arose from a Family Court order that had directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of ₹20,000 per month.This was was challenged before the High Court on the grounds that the couple had gotten divorced as per Muslim personal law in 2017.The High Court modified the maintenance to ₹10,000 per month and directed the family court to dispose of the case within six months.The counsel appearing for the man submitted that in view of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a divorced Muslim woman is not entitled to claim benefit under Section 125 CrPC.Further, the 1986 Act is more beneficial to Muslim women, it was contended..ConclusionsThe Court in its judgment today arrived at the following major conclusions:.(a) Section 125 CrPC applies to all married women including Muslim married women;(b) Section 125 CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women;c) Insofar as divorced Muslim women are concerned: i) Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all such Muslim women, married and divorced under the Special Marriage Act in addition to remedies available under the Special Marriage Act. However, divorced Muslim woman cannot resort to maintenance under Muslim personal law when married under Special Marriage Act, 1954.; ii) If Muslim women are married and divorced under Muslim law then Section 125 of the CrPC as well as the provisions of the 1986 Act are applicable. Option lies with the Muslim divorced women to seek remedy under either of the two laws or both laws. This is because the 1986 Act is not in derogation of Section 125 of the CrPC but in addition to the said provision. iii) If Section 125 of the CrPC is also resorted to by a divorced Muslim woman, as per the definition under the 1986 Act, then any order passed under the provisions of 1986 Act shall be taken into consideration under Section 127(3)(b) of the CrPC.d) The 1986 Act could be resorted to by a divorced Muslim woman, as defined under the said Act, by filing an application thereunder which could be disposed of in accordance with the said enactment.e) In case of an illegal divorce as per the provisions of the 2019 Act then: i) relief under Section 5 of the said Act could be availed for seeking subsistence allowance or, at the option of such a Muslim woman, remedy under Section 125 of the CrPC could also be availed. ii) If during the pendency of a petition filed under Section 125 of the CrPC, a Muslim woman is ‘divorced’ then she can take recourse under Section 125 of the CrPC or file a petition under the 2019 Act. iii) The provisions of the 2019 Act provide remedy in addition to and not in derogation of Section 125 of the CrPC..[Read Judgment]