CASE SUMMARY: MOHD. AHMED KHAN VS SHAH BANO BEGUM AND ORS.

Citation: AIR 1985 SC 945

Petitioner: Mohd. Ahmed Khan

Respondent: Shah Bano Begum and Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice D.A. Desai, Rangath Misra, O. Chinnappa Reddy, E.S. Venkataramiah.

Date of Judgment: April 23, 1985

Key Provision: Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure

Facts of the Case:

A Muslim Women named Shah Bano in 1932 got married to a famous lawyer of Indore, Mohd. Ahmed Khan and they had 3 sons and 2 daughters. Their marriage was going like an ordinary marriage for 14 years but, since according to Muslim Law a Muslim can get married 4 times without divorcing wives from previous marriage, Mohd. Ahmed Khan got married to another women knowing the fact that he is elder and she is younger in age. Marriage was not the reason for the issue as for some time both the wives and children lived a happy life. But later in the year 1975, Mohd. Ahmed Khan left 62 year old Shah Bano without giving her divorce. Furthermore, after being sent away by her husband she along with her 5 children were not welcomed in her own home where she lived before marriage. They were showed the door so they had to leave. Shah Bano never gained much exposure due to her marriage at such a young age. She was a 62 year old women so it was not easy for her to look after herself and her children and also manage financial problems as well at this age. So, in 1978, in the month of April, she approached the court in Indore and demanded maintenance of Rs 500 per month under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure^[1] in front of Judicial Magistrate. This suit was instituted due to the reason that her husband refused to give the maintenance amount of Rs. 200 to be paid monthly. In 1978, in November, Mohd. Ahmed Khan gave divorce to Shah Bano by saying “Talaq” thrice. As per the Muslim law this cannot be revoked and due to this Ahmed Khan presented the fact that since Shah Bano is no more his legal wife so he is not responsible for providing maintenance. The court gave instructions to pay Rs. 25 every month as maintenance to her. Later Madhya Pradesh High Court in 1980 changed the amount to be paid to Rs. 179.20. Mohd. Ahmed Khan filed a petition in Supreme Court stating the fact that as per Muslim Law he has no connection with his wife after divorce so, he has no responsibility to pay any sort of maintenance to her.

Issues Involved

1. Whether the term “wife” mentioned under Section 125(1) of CrPC^[2] includes a Muslim Women who is divorced.
2. Whether the Uniform Civil Code is to be followed by all the religions.
3. Whether the husband has a duty to pay maintenance under Section 127(3) of CrPC^[3] after the payment of Mehr is fulfilled.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Argument

The Petitioner in Shah Bano Case presented an argument that the issue of providing maintenance is looked after by the Muslim Personal Law and the provisions regarding the maintenance is not clear. It was further discussed that the Muslim husband will be responsible to provide the maintenance till the completion of iddat period. This means that after the divorce husband has to give payment till the time the iddat period of three months is not completed. After that husband’s duty will be over according to the Muslim Law. The Petitioner also mentioned that the Section 125 of CrPC^[4] talks about giving maintenance to wife after divorce and this is going against the Muslim Personal Law. The Petitioner stated that he has already provided Rs 200 to the Respondent for two years and also a sum of Rs 3000 was also submitted to the court as dower^[5].

So, he was standing by the fact that he completed all the responsibilities.

Respondent’s Argument

The Respondent placed the argument by clarifying that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not going against the Muslim Personal Laws as it is nowhere mentioned that husbands cannot give maintenance after the iddat period. The Muslim Personal Laws mentions about the period of iddat and payment to be made during that period but it does not deny the maintenance given beyond it. So, a stable decision could be brought up after carefully interpreting both the laws discussed. The Respondent highlighted that wives dependent on husbands should be provided with proper maintenance. In this case maintenance is necessary as it is not so easy for a 62 year lady who is not working, to take care of 5 children all by herself. So, due to this the Respondent raised the matter of maintenance so that the provisions become more clear and certain clarifications are made in provisions of maintenance. 

Judgment

The Judgment of this case helped in correct interpretation of Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Justice Chandrachud looked at certain verses of Koran and came up with a decision that even according to Islamic Law husband has a duty to maintain his wife so there is no violation of Muslim laws^[6]. The court stated two judgments in order to clear the issue that this particular section is to be followed by Muslims as well. They were Bai Tahira vs Ali Hussain Fidalli Chothia^[7] and Fazlunbi vs K. Khader Vali^[8]. These two judgments clarified that a Muslim Women can seek maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Brethren, Murtaza Fazal Ali and A. Varadarajan were part of the bench and they were not satisfied with the decision of paying the maintenance to the Respondent after iddat period is over and hence they asked for a larger bench to deal with this issue through an order passed on February 3, 1981. So, the matter was heard by a larger bench and they cleared the fact that according to Section 125(1)(a) of CrPC if a person has sufficient income to handle his expenses and if the women after divorce is not able to maintain herself, the court can ask the husband to pay amount not crossing Rs 500 to her every month. The term “wife” in this section includes Muslim Women and women of other religion as well because no provision related to a religion being excluded is mentioned. The women can ask for maintenance only if they are unmarried after the divorce. So, the term wife in this section was cleared. The five-judge bench presented their views and stood by the fact that it is the duty of the husband to pay the maintenance to the wife if she is not able to fulfill her expenses and this is not going against the Muslim Law as it is the right of the women^[9]. The husband cannot just walk away not paying the maintenance after the iddat period is over. So, certain changes need to made in Muslim Personal Laws as well as it lacks provisions regarding the maintenance of wife after divorce. The judges stated that Section 125 of CrPC does not discriminate woman on the basis of caste, religion etc. Issue of Uniform Civil Code remained unsolved as people began to show agitation demanding non interference in their personal laws. Furthermore, after some time due to increasing conflicts, Indian Parliament came up with the Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act, 1986 and behind this was a political motive involved as elections were upcoming at that time^[10]. This Act was not in favor of Supreme Court Decision and ended responsibility of husband to pay maintenance after iddat period. The maintenance will be paid by the relative or if there are no relatives then by Waqf Board if the wife cannot maintain herself. The Supreme Court studied both Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and this Act. At the end the most important judgment was discussed for the case that helped in its decision. In the case of Danial Latifi vs Union of India^[11] the court came up with a decision that husband’s duty to provide maintenance is not limited to iddat period. If the wife is not earning and faces difficulty to fulfill expenses then she will get the maintenance. So, this case concluded the entire Shah Bano Case.

Ratio Decidendi

After analyzing all the issues, the court clarified that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not discriminate women and no one is excluded. The court referred the case of Jagir Kaur & Another vs Jaswant Singh^[12] and highlighted the fact that the husband has to take responsibility to maintain the wife who is financially dependent. The Court stated that the provision in Muslim Law that ends the maintenance of wife after iddat period requires changes as the wife who is not working needs financial support which could be given in form of maintenance. When people raised questions and were against the decisions of the court, the court cleared it out that this section is a part of Criminal Procedure and a Criminal Procedure is not a Personal Law. So, this section is not going against the Muslim Law as it does not lay down personal provisions. So, the wife can get the maintenance till the time she does not get married again. Furthermore, the court stated that Mahr is given to a Muslim Wife and this is included in consideration given to her. Mahr cannot be covered in the amount paid after divorce. Both of them have different meanings as per Muslim Law. So, the petitioner has to pay proper maintenance to the Respondent and this will come to an end once she gets married again.

Impact of the Case

After the Shah Bano case The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was questioned as it said that the man can pay maintenance to a woman only till the iddat period. So, certain changes were demanded in this. This landmark case raised the question of having Uniform Civil Code which would benefit the country as would ensure unity. This case resulted in conflicts as the Muslims thought that their Personal Law was questioned but this was not the matter of Personal Law instead it was dealing with the right of a divorced woman. After this case, the rights of women after divorce were given importance and Mahr was one of such right so it was not considered as maintenance. The court mentioned that maintenance is not a charity it is the right of a women so it should not be ignored^[13]. This case helped a lot of women to gather strength and raise voice if there right is violated.  

Final Decision

In this famous but controversial Shah Bano Case, the court supported the Respondent Shah Bano. Her right was taken care of and she was provided with the maintenance.

Conclusion

So, this case is not just an ordinary case. The historic Shah Bano Case made people especially women aware of their rights after marriage and after divorce. It gave power to a lot of women to raise voices and fight for themselves. This case is remembered by all as it helped in changing many rigid provisions, breaking dominance of husbands and ensuring upliftment of women. So, this case explains importance of Mahr, Maintenance and Other Rights of Woman. This case is seen as an example that even woman can fight for their rights.

References

[1] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[2] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[3] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[4] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[5]Manupatra https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Case-Analysis-of-Mohd-Ahmed-Khan-v-Shah-Bano-Begum

[6] Paras Diwan, Family Law (Eleventh Edition, 2018)

[7] AIR 1979 SC 362

[8] AIR 1979 SC 362

[9]Manupatra https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Case-Analysis-of-Mohd-Ahmed-Khan-v-Shah-Bano-Begum

[10]Manupatra https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/CASE-ANALYSIS-MOHD-AHMAD-KHAN-VS-SHAH-BANO-BEGUM-AND-OTHERS-1987

[11] AIR 2001 SC 3958

[12] 1963 AIR 1521

[13]From Shah Bano to triple talaq, how Supreme Court empowered Muslim women https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/supreme-court-india-judgements-for-empowerment-muslim-women-shah-bano-rajiv-gandhi-noor-saba-khatoon-2564792-2024-07-10