Law Maker

Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana

Supreme Court of India · 10 July 2024 · 2 judges · 2024 INSC 506

A divorced Muslim woman may claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC; the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 adds to that remedy and does not displace it.

Facts

The appellant and Respondent No. 2 married on 15.11.2012. She left the matrimonial home in 2016 and lodged an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC in 2017. The appellant then pronounced triple talaq on 25.09.2017 and obtained an ex parte divorce certificate. He says he tried to pay Rs. 15,000 as maintenance for the iddat period, which she refused. She applied for interim maintenance under Section 125(1) CrPC, and the Family Court granted Rs. 20,000 a month on 09.06.2023. On his petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Telangana reduced it to Rs. 10,000. In appeal, he argued that the 1986 Act, as a special law with a non obstante clause, excludes a petition under Section 125 by a divorced Muslim woman.

Questions before the Court

  1. Whether a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC after the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
  2. Whether the non obstante clause in Section 3 of the 1986 Act excludes the remedy under Section 125 CrPC.

What the Court held

  • Section 125 CrPC applies to all married women, including Muslim married women, to all non-Muslim divorced women, and to Muslim women married and divorced under the Special Marriage Act.
  • For Muslim women married and divorced under Muslim law, both Section 125 CrPC and the 1986 Act apply, and the woman may seek either remedy or both. The 1986 Act is in addition to, not in derogation of, Section 125; the two rights exist in distinct domains and are harmoniously construed.
  • Where a divorced Muslim woman also uses Section 125 CrPC, any order under the 1986 Act is to be taken into account under Section 127(3)(b) CrPC.
  • In a divorce that is illegal under the 2019 Act, she may seek subsistence allowance under Section 5 of that Act or, at her option, maintenance under Section 125 CrPC; the 2019 Act also adds to Section 125.
  • High Court decisions taking the contrary view do not lay down the correct law. The High Court's order was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Why it matters

The judgment settles that the secular remedy of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC remains open to a divorced Muslim woman despite the 1986 Act, reading Danial Latifi as having upheld that Act on the footing that it adds to and does not take away the Section 125 right. It also states how Section 125 interacts with the 1986 Act and the 2019 Act.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“If Muslim women are married and divorced under Muslim law then Section 125 of the CrPC as well as the provisions of the 1986 Act are applicable. Option lies with the Muslim divorced women to seek remedy under either of the two laws or both laws. This is because the 1986 Act is not in derogation of Section 125 of the CrPC but in addition to the said provision.”
Page 98 of the judgment
“From the aforementioned, we are inclined to conclude that equivalent rights of maintenance ascertained under both, the secular provision of Section 125 of CrPC 1973, and the personal law provision of Section 3 of the 1986 Act, parallelly exist in their distinct domains and jurisprudence. Thereby, leading to their harmonious construction and continued existence of the right to seek maintenance for a divorced Muslim woman under the provisions of CrPC 1973 despite the enactment of the 1986 Act.”
Augustine George Masih, J.Page 42 of the judgment
“In my view, the rights created under the provisions of the 1986 Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the right created under Section 125 of the CrPC, and the same is the basis for this Court’s conclusion in Danial Latifi to save the 1986 Act from the vice of unconstitutionality.”
B.V. Nagarathna, J.Page 71 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

  • Explains Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001)“the same is the basis for this Court’s conclusion in Danial Latifi to save the 1986 Act from the vice of unconstitutionality.” (page 71)

Case and bench

Parties
Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana
Case
Criminal Appeal No. 2842 of 2024
Decided
10 July 2024
Bench
B.V. Nagarathna, J., Augustine George Masih, J.
Opinions
Unanimous. Augustine George Masih, J. wrote the judgment, signed by both Judges; B.V. Nagarathna, J. agreed and wrote separate concurring reasons. A joint order sets out the conclusions of the two concurring judgments.

Questions on this case

1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.