Case Summary: Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum and Others, 1985 AIR SC 945

• Title: Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum and Others
• Citation: 1985 AIR SC 945
• Court: Supreme Court of India 
• Bench: Chandrachud Y.V (CJI), Misra Rangnath, D.A Desai, O.Chinnappa Reddy, E.S Veenkataramiah (J)
• Date of Judgement: 23rd April 1985
• Relevant Statutes/Provisions: Section 125 & 127 CRPC, Article 44 of Indian Constitution and Section 3 of Muslim Personal Law-Shariah Law.  

Brief Facts:

The petitioner, Mohd. Ahmed Khan, who was an advocate by profession, married the respondent Shah Bano Begum in 1932. They had a prosperous married life of almost 14 years with 5 children of their own- three sons and two daughters. But after certain period of time, the petitioner drove out the respondent of the marital home in the year 1975, where the respondent was reported to be 62 years of age. 

Due to inexperience of life outside the matrimonial household work, the respondent did not have the resources or means to earn a stable income to provide for herself. Prior to the apex court appearance, the respondent made an appeal to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Indore under the provision of Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, to provide the relief of maintenance from her now ex-husband. Under Section 125 CRPC, the term maintenance refers to the financial support provided to specific dependant people by a person who has sufficient means but neglects or refuses to maintain them. This includes a wife, who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The respondent asked for the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month as the said salary received by the petitioner was Rs. 5,000 per month under Sec 125 (1) (a) of CRPC. 

The petitioner, in the year 1978, declared triple talaq to the respondent, giving her Rs. 200 up to two years and Rs. 3,000 by the court towards the dower or Mahr all while during the period of ‘iddath’. In the year 1979 the Judicial Magistrate of First Class granted her the maintenance of Rs. 25. But, unable to maintain herself with such minimal amount, the respondent appealed the High Court of Madhya Pradesh with the same provision of Sec 125, CRPC. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh levelled up the maintenance by 3.58% of the said salary i.e Rs. 179 per month. 

The petitioner counter appealed this verdict given by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to the apex court i.e Supreme Court of India. Where, he questioned the provision of Section 125 CRPC in contrast with Section 127 (3)(b) of CRPC that states that the Magistrate shall cancel the order passed by him if the woman who has been divorced by or given the divorce receives the amount of maintenance, in full, by the provisions of the customary or personal law applicable to the parties at the time of divorce. The other question raised was that Sec 125 of CRPC violates the Section 3 of the Muslim Personal Law, Shariah that states a husband is no longer liable to pay the amount of maintenance towards the ex-wife after the period of ‘iddath’ and how the said provision of the Muslim Personal Law was ignored or overlooked by the previous two judgements made. 

In response to the petitioner, the Supreme Court of India, upheld the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh towards the payment of Rs. 179 in maintenance of the respondent, dismissing the appeal made by the petitioner in protection of Sec 127 of CRPC.

Issues Involved: 

• Does Section 125 of CRPC apply to Muslim women, especially divorced ones, who are unable to sustain themselves beyond the iddath period?
• The major conflict that clash with the provisions of Section 125 of CRPC and Section 3 of the Muslim Personal Shariah Law. 
• Does payment of Mahr dissolve the responsibility of paying maintenance beyond the iddath period? 

Arguments:

Mohd. Ahmed Khan (Petitioner)

• Obligation beyond the Shariah Law- The argument accused the court of law to impose unnecessary obligations on the husband beyond what was stated in the Muslim Personal Law. 
• Payment of Mahr was the final settlement in the iddath period and the further payment of maintenance was violation of what was stated in Section 127 of CRPC. 
• Section 125 of CRPC overrides Muslim Personal Shariah Law. 

Shah Bano Begum (Respondent)

• Right to maintenance under Section 125 of CRPC to sustain herself. 
• Mahr settlement does not fulfil lifelong sustainment of a wife. 

Judgement: 

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by Y.V Chandrachud, CJI. The bench of 5 judges decided and declared that Section 125 of CRPC considers the ex-wife as a wife until she is remarried. The imposition of Article 44 of the Indian Constitution came into force, emphasising the uniform code, pointing that Section 125 of CRPC implies to all women and Muslim women are no exclusion from such provisions. The wife is still eligible to receive the maintenance amount as she is unable to sustain herself on her own under Section 125 of CRPC.  That the said provision is a criminal procedure code and not a civil law, which further explains the non-clash with civil laws or personal laws regardless of the religion of the appealing parties. 

That the payment of Mahr or dower towards the wife after the divorce during the period of iddath and then no payment of maintenance towards the wife even when she is not able to provide or maintain herself is unacceptable under the provision of Section 125 of CRPC as the provision holds a person accountable towards the negligence of providing maintenance even when sufficient means exist. Also, the payment of Mahr is taken as a sign of respect towards the husband divorcing the wife, which also extends the legal right of maintenance of the wife beyond the iddath period by Section 125 of CRPC. If the wife is the one taking divorce and has regular means to sustain herself through dependency on self or relatives like siblings, parents or cousin then she is not eligible to ask for maintenance under Section 125 of CRPC. This emphasised the role of the said provision Section 125 of CRPC to be a secular, accepting and protecting provision. 

Ratio Decidendi: 

1. Section 125 of CRPC is a secular law and applies to all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs. 
2. A divorced Muslim women is considered as a ‘wife’ under the Section 125 of CRPC as long as she does not remarry. 
3. Payment of Mahr as a one-time payment does not dissolve the responsibility of a husband to pay the maintenance under Section 125 of CRPC. 
4. A husband is legally bounded to pay the maintenance of a wife if she is unable to maintain herself under the Section 125 of CRPC and cannot be defended by relying on personal laws. 

Obiter Dicta: 

1. The role of Uniform Civil Code under Article 44- The Court observed the requirement of UCC to bind all citizens. It recognised the absence of UCC, stating the regrettable failure. 
2. Interpretation of Quranic Verses and Discussions with All India Muslim Personal Law Board regarding the payment of Meher and Section 3 of the Shariah Law – The discussion made it clear that the payment made during the iddath period is a one-time payment towards the Dower or Mahr, which cannot be argued as maintenance money. 
3. Importance of Secular Laws- the Court remarked the importance of secular laws like Section 125 of CRPC which are applicable to all citizens regardless of religion and are required to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. 

Final Decision: 

The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court of granting Shah Bano Begum the maintenance of Rs. 179, stating that Section 125 of CRPc is a secular law applicable to all citizens regardless of their religion, which also included divorced Muslim women. It granted the entitlement to Muslim Women who cannot maintain herself to ask for maintenance from their ex-husbands beyond the iddath period, if necessary to sustain herself.