Author- Shivansh Singh, Integrated Law Course (ILC), Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

KEYWORDS:

Divorce, Muslim Women, Maintenance, CrPC 125, Women’s Rights

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The following case revolves around Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 144 in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), where the Supreme Court adjudicated the perpetual complexities accompanied by the claims of maintenance, particularly for divorced Muslim women, thereby highlighting the need for timely justice in family matters.

Maintenance in the legal context is defined as the grant of support or sustenance to the partner in an inferior position post the annulment of their marriage. It refers to the entitlement of such claimant towards the maintenance sum based on the assumption that the claimant lacks sufficient means to sustain themselves in the absence of their partner.

The grant of maintenance to wives in common law doctrine is based on the principles of equity, fairness, and justice since the economic dependence of a woman in matrimony is deeply entrenched in social norms and values. Therefore, the maintenance of wives is implemented as a statutory safeguard in the hindsight of the cultural context from which they emerge. The main principles for the grant of maintenance are as follows – (i) The aggrieved party has no property to their name; (ii) The aggrieved party is the wife or child of the obligor; (iii) The obligor’s economic condition is strong to support himself. Based on this, under Muslim law, the permissible provisions for the maintenance of women are as follows:

• Maintenance under classical Muslim law/Muslim Personal Law;
• Maintenance under the provisions of the CrPC (now BNSS);
• Maintenance under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986; and
• Maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

1. The appellant approached the Family Court, Lucknow to obtain a decree of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband who contested it by arguing that “all the averments about demand of dowry and harassment were false and that he had already given divorce to her on a prior date along with the payment of Mehar amount to her.”
2. The Family Judge of the Family Court, Lucknow, initially did not accept the primary contention w.r.t. the maintainability under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure for a Muslim woman applicant.
3. The Family Judge appreciated the evidence of the wife about her suffering within her matrimonial home. The court also acknowledged that the wife did not have any source of income to support herself.
4. The court directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- as a monthly maintenance allowance from the date of submission of the application till the date of judgment and thereafter Rs. 4000/- per month from the date of judgment till the date of remarriage.
5. Consequently, the case came to the High Court, which observed that the Family Court had granted the decree for maintenance without ascribing any valid reason. The High Court also acknowledged the husband’s retirement and, therefore, reduced the maintenance allowance to Rs. 2000/-.
6. Therefore, the wife appealed to the Supreme Court with special leave.

Factual Background of the Case

1. The appellant, i.e., the wife, married Shahid Khan, the respondent. During this time, she was subjected to abject harassment in her matrimonial house, such as being prohibited from talking to others and constant demand for dowry.
2. Subsequently, she was sent to her maternal home, where she was compelled to stay for almost three months, and the husband’s indifference towards the wife subsisted. Moreover, the husband also developed illicit, extra-marital affairs with another woman to marry her.
3. The wife was also assaulted by the husband when the affair came to her knowledge, and her living conditions further deteriorated at her matrimonial home. Eventually, the wife approached her parents for help, who took her back to her parental home in Lucknow for treatment.
4. She was deserted by her husband after constantly receiving ill-treatment from him, and upon the conclusion of the irretrievability of her marriage, followed by her several attempts for a reunion, she filed an application for a grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month on the foundation that husband was working on the post of Nayak in the Army and getting a salary of Rs.10,000/- approximately apart from other perks.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether s 125 of CrPC applies to divorced Muslim women while seeking maintenance.
2. Whether the High Court’s discretion of reducing the maintenance amount was justified or not.

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to Muslim women, and the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue.
2. It was submitted that the High Court erred in revising the amount of maintenance from Rs. 4000/- per month to Rs. 2000/-
3. It was also submitted that the High Court overlooked the dire circumstances of the wife in reducing the amount granted for maintenance and, therefore, is not founded by legal rationale.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The Respondent and his counsel did not appear in this case despite the service of notice.
2. However, the respondent (husband), in prior stages, strongly contested the allegations of ill-treatment and claimed that he had already paid the Mehar amount according to Islamic rules to his wife, thereby releasing him of any financial obligation.
3. He further sought a reduction in the maintenance amount owing to his retirement and financial constraints.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 7, Jurisdiction: Provides the courts with the jurisdiction in cases for maintenance in matrimonial disputes.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 125, Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents: Provides for the obligation of the husband to pay maintenance to the wife who is unable to maintain herself
3. Constitution of India – Article 15(3): Provides for the State to make any special provision for women and children.
4. Constitution of India – Article 39, Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State: Provides for the state to make provision for equality between men and women.

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to Muslim women for claiming maintenance in the instance of dissolution of their marriage.
2. An application for the grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be disposed of expeditiously by the family courts.
3. The determination of the maintenance amount is based on the status and strata of the husband, which allows the wife to lead a life in a similar and dignified manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband.
4. A healthy, able-bodied husband who can support himself is under the legal obligation to support his wife Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, can’t be excused for it.
5. The High Court erred in reducing the maintenance amount since the order was based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, and thus, no interference was required.

GUIDELINES 

The family courts have been established to adopt and facilitate the swift adjudication of family disputes fairly and judiciously. Therefore, the Family Judge should dispose of the cases speedily and expeditiously.

OBITER DICTA 

1. The husband’s obligation is usually placed higher on the question of maintaining the wife and children.
2. Following her separation from her husband and leaving her matrimonial house, the maintenance grant to her is a remedy for her troubles and grievances and a measure of social justice by the court.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

“A woman, constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life similarly as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband come into play, and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one.”

The Supreme Court, through this case, reaffirmed the principle of granting maintenance to Muslim women under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The expansion of the ambit of this provision allows for the protection of women’s rights irrespective of their religion, thereby securing their social position and laying down the contours for exemption of the husband’s liability to excuse themselves from paying the maintenance.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. Shamim Bano v. Asraf Khan
2. Danial Latifi v. Union of India
3. Khatoon Nisa v. State of U.P.
4. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Ors.
5. K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida
6. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun and Ors.
7. Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai
8. Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash

Important Statutes Referred

• Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973