DANIAL LATIFI v UNION OF INDIA

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, the constitutional validity of the Muslim
Women(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was challenged
before the Supreme Court.The Act was passed to appease a particular
section of the society and with the intention of making the decision in case
of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum ineffective.
In the Shahbanos case, the husband had appealed against the judgment
of the MadhyaPradesh High Court which had directed him to pay to
his divorced wife Rs. 179/- per m o n t h , e n h a n c i n g t h e p a l t r y
sum of Rs. 25 per month originally granted by
t h e Magistrate. The parties had been married for 43 years before the ill and
elderly wife had b e e n t h r o w n o u t o f h e r h u s b a n d ' s r e s i d e n c e . F o r
a b o u t t w o y e a r s t h e h u s b a n d p a i d maintenance to his wife at the rate
of Rs. 200/- per month. When these payments ceased s h e p e t i t i o n e d u n d e r
S e c t i o n 1 2 5 o f t h e C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e ( C r .P.C . ) . T h e
husband immediately dissolved the marriage by pronouncing a triple
talaq. H e p a i d Rs.3000/- as deferred mahr a n d a f u r t h e r s u m t o
c o v e r a r r e a r s o f m a i n t e n a n c e a n d maintenance for the iddat
period and he sought thereafter to have the petition dismissed on the ground
that she had received the amount due to her on divorce under the
Musilml a w a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e p a r t i e s . T h e i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e o f
t h e c a s e w a s t h a t w i f e h a d managed the matrimonial home for
more than 40 years and had borne and reared five children and was
incapable of taking up any career or independently supporting herself att h a t
late state of her life - remarriage was impossibility in that
c a s e . T h e h u s b a n d , a successful Advocate with an approximate income of
Rs. 5,000/- per month provided Rs.2 0 0 / - p e r m o n t h t o t h e d i v o r c e d
w i f e , w h o h a d s h a r e d h i s l i f e f o r h a l f a c e n t u r y a n d mothered
his five children and was in desperate need of money to survive
ARGUMENTS
T he petitioner argued, (a) that the rationale of Section 125 Cr.P.C. wasto offset
or meet a situation wherein a divorced wife was likely to be led into
destitutiono r v a g r a n c y. I t w a s u r g e d t h a t S e c t i o n 1 2 5 C r .P.C .

w a s e n a c t e d t o p r e v e n t s u c h a situation in furtherance of the

concept of social justice embodied in Article 21 of theConstitution.
(b) That the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. being to avoid vagrancy,
theremedy thereunder could not be denied to a Muslim woman otherwise it
would amount toviolation of not only equality before law but also
equal protection of laws (Article 14)and inherent infringement of
Article 21 as well as basic human values. (c) That the Act was unIslamic, unconstitutional and had the potential of suffocating the Muslim
womenw h i l e a l s o u n d e r m i n i n g t h e s e c u l a r c h a r a c t e r ,
w h i c h w a s t h e b a s i c f e a t u r e o f t h e Constitution. And thus there
was no rhyme or reason to deprive the Muslim women fromthe applicability of
the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C.Defending the validity of the
enactment, it was argued on behalf of the respo ndents that( a ) i f t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e , a s a m a t t e r o f p o l i c y, w a n t e d t o a p p l y S e c t i o n
1 2 5 C r .P.C . t o M u s l i m s , i t a l s o m e a n t t h a t t h e s a m e
l e g i s l a t u r e c o u l d , b y n e c e s s a r y i m p l i c a t i o n , withdraw such an
application of the Act and make some other provision in that regard.
(b) Parliament could amend Section 125 Cr.P.C. so as to exclude it application
and apply personal law instead. (c) That the policy of Section 125 Cr.P.C. was
not to create a rightof maintenance dehors the personal law and therefore
could not stand in the way of the Act
JUDGEMENT
U pholding the validity of the Act, the Supreme Court held as follows;
1) A Muslim husband is liable to make reasonable and fair provision for
thefuture of the divorced wife which obviously includes her
maintenance aswell. Such a reasonable and fair provision
extending beyond the iddat period must be made by the husband
within the iddat period in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act,
2) Liability of Muslim husband to his divorced wife arising under
Section3(1)(a) of the Act to pay maintenance is not confined to iddat
period,
3) A divorced Muslim woman who has not remarried and who is not able
tomaintain herself after iddat period can proceed as provided under
Section4 o f t h e A c t a g a i n s t h e r r e l a t i v e s w h o a r e
l i a b l e t o m a i n t a i n h e r i n proportion to the properties
which they inherit on her death according to M u s l i m l a w

from such divorced woman including her children

a n d parents. If any of the relatives being unable to pay
m a i n t e n a n c e , t h e Magistrate may direct the State Wakf Board
established under the Act to pay such maintenance.
4) T h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Ac t d o n o t o f f e n d Ar t i c l e s 1 4 , 1 5
a n d 2 1 o f t h e Constitution of India.