Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Income Tax | Transfer Pricing Adjustments Must Be Based on Economic Reality, Not Hypothetical Comparisons: Delhi High Court Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Technicality: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Police Officers Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

Section 125 CrPC Applies to Muslim Women Despite 1986 Act: Supreme Court in Landmark Maintenance Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court’s reduction of interim maintenance overturned, affirming concurrent applicability of Section 125 CrPC and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

In a landmark judgment delivered on July 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of India affirmed the applicability of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for maintenance to Muslim women, both married and divorced, regardless of the provisions under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The judgment, delivered by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, emphasized that the two laws provide complementary, rather than exclusive, remedies for maintenance.

The appeal arose from a decision by the High Court of Telangana, which had reduced the interim maintenance payable by the appellant, Mohd. Abdul Samad, to his former wife from INR 20,000 to INR 10,000 per month. This decision followed the appellant’s argument that the 1986 Act supersedes Section 125 CrPC. The appellant had pronounced triple talaq and sought a declaration of divorce, which led to his former wife filing for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Concurrent Applicability of CrPC and the 1986 Act:

The Supreme Court concluded that Section 125 CrPC applies to all married and divorced women, including Muslim women, irrespective of the remedies available under the 1986 Act. Justice Masih noted, “The 1986 Act is not in derogation of Section 125 CrPC but in addition to it, thereby giving a divorced Muslim woman the option to seek maintenance under either or both laws”.

Justice Nagarathna, while concurring with Justice Masih, elaborated that Section 125 CrPC remains a secular remedy aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution, thus serving a broader social purpose. “A Muslim divorced woman has the right to seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC despite the enactment of the 1986 Act,” she emphasized, underscoring that the provisions of the 1986 Act are additional remedies.

The Court dismissed the argument that the non-obstante clause in the 1986 Act excludes the applicability of Section 125 CrPC, affirming that the two can coexist. The judgment stressed that any amount awarded under the 1986 Act would be taken into account when determining maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, ensuring no double benefit but adequate provision for the divorced woman.

This ruling fortifies the legal framework protecting Muslim women’s rights to maintenance by affirming the concurrent applicability of Section 125 CrPC and the 1986 Act. It provides clarity on the legislative intent, ensuring that divorced Muslim women are not deprived of their rights under the guise of conflicting laws. This decision is expected to have significant implications, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of women across all communities in India.

 

Date of Decision: July 10, 2024.

Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana & Another

 

Similar News