New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a Muslim woman can seek maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and said the "secular and religiously neutral" provision is applicable to all married women irrespective of their religion.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 will not prevail over secular law, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih said.
"We hereby dismiss the criminal appeal with the main conclusion that Section 125 would be applicable to all women..." Justice Nagarathna said while delivering the verdict.
The two judges issued separate but concurring verdicts.
Section 125 of the old CrPC, which deals with the wife's legal right to maintenance, covers Muslim women, the court said.
"The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 shall not prevail over the secular and religiously neutral provision of Section 125 of the CrPC," it said, while emphasizing that maintenance does not It is charity but a right of all married women.
The high court dismissed the petition of Mohammed Abdul Samad, who challenged a Telangana High Court order refusing to interfere with the family court's maintenance order.
He held that a divorced Muslim woman is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC and has to invoke the provisions of the 1986 Act.
The court had reserved its verdict for February 19 after hearing the petitioner's senior advocate Wasim Qadri. He had appointed lawyer Gaurav Agarwal as amicus curiae in the matter to assist the court.
Qadri had claimed that the 1986 Act is more beneficial for Muslim women compared to Section 125 of the CrPC.
On December 13, 2023, the high court did not set aside the family court's order for payment of interim maintenance by Samad to his ex-wife, but reduced the amount from Rs 20,000 to Rs 10,000 per month, payable from of the date of request.
Samad argued before the high court that they were divorced according to personal laws in 2017 and that there was a divorce certificate to that effect, but it was not considered by the Family Court, which ordered payment of interim maintenance.
Aggrieved by the high court's order, Samad approached the high court.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 will not prevail over secular law, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih said.
"We hereby dismiss the criminal appeal with the main conclusion that Section 125 would be applicable to all women..." Justice Nagarathna said while delivering the verdict.
The two judges issued separate but concurring verdicts.
Section 125 of the old CrPC, which deals with the wife's legal right to maintenance, covers Muslim women, the court said.
"The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 shall not prevail over the secular and religiously neutral provision of Section 125 of the CrPC," it said, while emphasizing that maintenance does not It is charity but a right of all married women.
The high court dismissed the petition of Mohammed Abdul Samad, who challenged a Telangana High Court order refusing to interfere with the family court's maintenance order.
He held that a divorced Muslim woman is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC and has to invoke the provisions of the 1986 Act.
The court had reserved its verdict for February 19 after hearing the petitioner's senior advocate Wasim Qadri. He had appointed lawyer Gaurav Agarwal as amicus curiae in the matter to assist the court.
Qadri had claimed that the 1986 Act is more beneficial for Muslim women compared to Section 125 of the CrPC.
On December 13, 2023, the high court did not set aside the family court's order for payment of interim maintenance by Samad to his ex-wife, but reduced the amount from Rs 20,000 to Rs 10,000 per month, payable from of the date of request.
Samad argued before the high court that they were divorced according to personal laws in 2017 and that there was a divorce certificate to that effect, but it was not considered by the Family Court, which ordered payment of interim maintenance.
Aggrieved by the high court's order, Samad approached the high court.
