.jpeg)
PARTIES TO THE CASE
APPELLANT ---- Shabana Bano
RESPONDENT ---- Imran Khan
CITATION
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., AIR 2010 SC 305, (2009) 1 SCC 666
ISSUE:
Whether a Muslim divorced wife is entitled to support from her divorced husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and if so, through which forum?
Whether Muslim divorced women are entitled to support after the 'iddat period' and whether they can make a claim
LAWS APPLICABLE:
Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC):
“Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. In case his wife is unable to maintain herself, “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.”
Section 20 of the family Act:
“Which makes the situation crystal clear that the provisions of the Act shall have an overriding effect on all other enactments in force dealing with the issue of maintenance”
ARGUMENTS / CONTENTIONS:
1] In November of 2001, Shabana Bano (appellant) married Imran Khan (respondent) in Gwalior, India, according to Muslim rituals.
2] The appellant stated that her spouse and his family were cruel to her because they demanded more dowry from her.
3] When the appellant became pregnant, the respondent took her to her parents' residence, where she gave birth to the child.
4] She was told to come when the dowry demands were met.
5] The appellant was then forced to file a suit against the respondent in the Court of the Family Judge, Gwalior, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., requesting a monthly support of Rs. 3000 because he was not accepting any responsibility even after the divorce.
6] The respondent argued that the appellant was divorced in accordance with Muslim law on August 20, 2004. As a result of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the appellant is ineligible for alimony after the divorce and the iddat time has expired.
PROSECUTION:
1] The petitioner claimed that, despite paying a dowry at the time of marriage, her husband and his family continued to demand more money and treated her cruelly. Then she was transported to her parents' house, where she gave birth to her child and sought her husband for maintenance, which he refused.
2] According to the Petitioner, the respondent received a monthly salary of $12,000, from which he should pay her Rs. 3000 in maintenance on a monthly basis.
3] The maintenance claim was filed under Section 125 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure.
DEFENCE
1] Respondent's attorney contended in court that there is no explicit statute stating that a Muslim husband is obligated to pay maintenance to his divorced wife even after the 'iddat' time has expired.
2] Aside from that, the respondent claimed that the appellant was earning Rs. 6000 per month from private tutoring and hence didn't require the support.
3] The respondent also claimed that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, did not include any provisions for maintenance.
JUDGEMENT
1] The Court noted that Section 5 of the Muslim Women Act addresses the potential of being controlled by Sections 125-128 of the Cr.P.C.
2] Family Courts have the authority to try suits or procedures for maintenance under Section 7(1)(f) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
3] The Family Act, under Section 20, has the effect of replacing all other enactments in force dealing with this subject.
As a result, a Family Court established under the Family Act has exclusive authority to arbitrate claims brought under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
4] As long as the appellant does not remarry, the appellant's petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. will be sustained in the Family Court. The amount of maintenance due under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be confined to the iddat period.
As a result, the case was remanded to the Family Court in Gwalior, where it would be decided on the merits in accordance with the law. Even if a Muslim woman has been divorced, she is still entitled to support from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. once the term of iddat has expired.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
There are numerous family laws from various religions, but there is one common rule that applies to all Indians: The Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Maintenance is supplied to all divorced women (regardless of faith) who are in need of it under Section 125 of this legislation. As a result, as we can see, there is a chance that some laws will contradict one another, and in such a case.
1] The question before the court in this case was whether a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance from her husband after the 'iddat' time had passed?
The court then cited the instances of Danial Latifi and others v. Union of India and Iqbal Bano v. State of U. P. and others to show that a divorced Muslim woman can sue her husband for maintenance even after the 'iddat' time has passed. The scope and purpose of S. 125,
ACCORDING TO THE FORMER CASE, is to combat vagrancy by requiring those who can to support people who are unable to maintain themselves and who have a normal and legal claim to support.4
WHILE IN THE LATTER CASE, i.e., of Iqbal Bano v. State of U.P. it was held that,
“Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are civil in nature. Even if the Court noticed that there was a divorced woman in the case in question, it was open to it to treat it as a petition under the Act considering the beneficial nature of the legislation”
"Cumulative reading of the relevant portions of this Court's judgments in Danial Latifi and Iqbal Bano would make it crystal clear that even a divorced Muslim woman would be entitled to claim maintenance from her divorced husband, as long as she does not remarry," the court said in these judgments, referring to the current case.
2] Whether a Muslim divorced wife is entitled to support from her divorced husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and if so, through which forum?
The court considered different family and personal laws before determining that the family court has jurisdiction to hear the applications submitted under S. 125 of the Cr.P.C. While delivering the current judgement, the rationale employed in these two precedents was retained.
For all of these reasons, I believe the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan is historic, as it once again upholds the morals and logic of numerous personal laws.
CONCLUSION:
It can be argued from this decision that even after a Muslim woman has been divorced, she is still entitled to maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. after the iddat period has expired.
The Muslim community's outcry following the infamous Shah Bano case prompted the Central Government to enact the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. This Act imposed a statutory requirement on Muslim divorced women's husbands and families to assist her with maintenance if she is unable to support herself . According to a correct interpretation of the Act, divorced women are eligible for maintenance during the 'iddat period'. Furthermore, in the Danial Latifi case, the Supreme Court declared that Muslim men must make reasonable and equitable provisions for the future of the wife they are divorcing during the 'iddat time.'
Now, Shabana Bano vs. Imran Khan is a major judgement issued by the Supreme Court of India, which was composed of two judges: On the 4th of December 2009, B. Sudershan Reddy and Deepak Verma took it a step further and asked whether Muslim divorced women are entitled to maintenance even beyond the 'iddat time' and can claim it under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
.jpeg)
.jpeg&description= A CASE COMMENTARY ON SHABANA BANO V. IMRAN KHAN AIR 2010 SC 305, (2009) 1 SCC 666){kind=link}