A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr. addresses the applicability of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) concerning maintenance for Muslim women, both married and divorced, juxtaposed with provisions under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. The Supreme Court resolves the interplay between secular laws for maintenance and personal law statutes, focusing on whether Muslim women can invoke Section 125 CrPC alongside or independent of personal law remedies. The judgment reiterates that Section 125 CrPC is secular and a tool for ensuring social justice, thereby affirming its application to Muslim women irrespective of religious statutes. The judgment also clarifies that provisions of personal laws do not dilute or exclude remedies under CrPC.

Keywords: Section 125 CrPC, Muslim women maintenance, Social Justice, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, Non-obstante Clause.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 2842 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date:
10 July 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih

vi) Author:
Justice Augustine George Masih

vii) Citation:
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1236; 2024 INSC 506

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 125 CrPC, 1973
• Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
• Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019
• Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India

ix) Judgments Overruled:
None explicitly overruled; the case affirms earlier precedents.

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Family Law, Women’s Rights.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The controversy in the present case arose over the invocation of Section 125 CrPC by a Muslim divorced woman for maintenance. Section 125 provides a secular remedy for maintenance irrespective of the religion of the claimant. The appellant contended that the enactment of the 1986 Act ousted the applicability of CrPC provisions for Muslim women. This case tested the boundaries of secularism in maintenance law and the coexistence of personal law frameworks.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Mohd. Abdul Samad, married the respondent on 15 November 2012. Their marital relationship deteriorated, leading the respondent to leave the matrimonial home in 2016. The appellant unilaterally pronounced triple talaq in 2017. The respondent sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court initially awarded interim maintenance, later modified by the High Court. The appellant challenged the High Court’s order, arguing that the respondent should seek relief under the 1986 Act.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Does Section 125 CrPC apply to Muslim women, married and divorced?
2. Can remedies under CrPC and personal law statutes be pursued simultaneously?
3. Does the 1986 Act oust the jurisdiction of CrPC concerning maintenance?
4. What is the relationship between the 1986 Act, 2019 Act, and Section 125 CrPC?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The 1986 Act provides a comprehensive remedy for divorced Muslim women, excluding remedies under Section 125 CrPC.
2. The appellant fulfilled obligations under the 1986 Act by offering maintenance during the iddat period.
3. The High Court erred by granting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC without considering the primacy of personal laws.
4. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740, which underscores the overriding effect of the 1986 Act.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Section 125 CrPC is a secular provision guaranteeing maintenance irrespective of religion.
2. The 1986 Act supplements, not excludes, remedies under CrPC.
3. The appellant neglected his financial obligations, justifying the invocation of Section 125 CrPC.
4. The principle of social justice embedded in Section 125 CrPC mandates its application to ensure protection from destitution.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 125 CrPC, 1973 – Secular maintenance provision.
2. Section 3, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Specific rights for Muslim divorced women.
3. Articles 14, 15, 21, Constitution of India – Right to equality, prohibition of discrimination, and right to life.
4. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 – Criminalizes triple talaq.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:

Section 125 CrPC applies to Muslim women, married or divorced. It does not conflict with provisions of the 1986 Act, as both statutes operate in separate fields. Muslim divorced women may seek remedies under both laws.

b. Obiter Dicta (if any):

The judgment emphasizes the harmony between secular and personal laws, underscoring the primacy of social justice.

c. Guidelines (if any):

1. Courts must harmoniously interpret secular and personal law provisions.
2. Section 125 CrPC remains a default remedy for maintenance claims.
3. The 1986 Act should not dilute constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) 2 SCC 556
2. Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740
3. Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan (2010) 1 SCC 666

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
3. Constitution of India