Mohd Abdul Samad v State of Telangana
Rule established
S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, now S.144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, applies to all married and divorced women irrespective of their personal law, including Muslim women divorced by pronouncement of triple talaq. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 is not a special law overriding the general provision; the remedy under the 1986 Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the criminal maintenance remedy, and a divorced Muslim woman may pursue both.
Facts
- Mohd Abdul Samad's former wife applied for maintenance under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A Family Court in Telangana ordered him to pay Rs 20,000 per month. On appeal the Telangana High Court reduced the interim maintenance to Rs 10,000 per month but refused to set aside the order. He appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that his wife, being a divorced Muslim woman, had to take recourse exclusively under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986, and that the 1986 Act, being a special law, overrode S.125 of the Code.
Issue
- Whether a divorced Muslim woman is confined to the remedy under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986, or whether she may also apply for maintenance under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Held
- The appeal was dismissed. S.125 of the Code applies to all married and divorced women irrespective of their personal law. The 1986 Act does not extinguish or displace the right; the remedy it provides is in addition to, and not in derogation of, the remedy under S.125, and a divorced Muslim woman may avail herself of both. Nagarathna J held that there can be no disparity in receiving maintenance on the basis of the law under which a woman is married or divorced, and that such a difference cannot be a basis for discriminating between divorced women entitled to maintenance under the conditions stipulated in S.125. Maintenance is not charity but a right of married women, applicable irrespective of religion.
Ratio Decidendi
The reasoning has two limbs. The character of the provision. S.125 of the Code is a secular provision situated in a criminal procedure statute, whose object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It is not a provision of personal law and does not depend on the religion of the applicant. A woman who satisfies its conditions, that she is a wife or a divorced woman who has not remarried, that she is unable to maintain herself, and that the man has sufficient means and has neglected or refused to maintain her, comes within it. The relationship between the two statutes. The 1986 Act contains no provision excluding S.125, and the general presumption against implied repeal or ouster applies with particular force where the general provision is beneficial. A special law displaces a g
How to use it in an exam
- The current law, and the case that must be cited in any maintenance question involving a Muslim woman. State it as the terminus of the Shah Bano to Danial Latifi line.
- Get the renumbering right: S.125 CrPC is now S.144 BNSS, and S.127(3)(b) is now S.146(3)(b). Using the BNSS numbering, while noting the CrPC provision the cases were decided under, shows currency.
- The formula is cumulative, not alternative. The 1986 Act is in addition to, not in derogation of, the criminal remedy.
- Note that the decision covers women divorced by triple talaq, which after Shayara Bano and the 2019 Act is void; so a woman in that position may be a wife rather than a divorced woman, and can claim on either footing.
- The three case sequence to reproduce:
- - Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum (1985): S.125 applies beyond iddat.
- - Danial Latifi v Union of India (2001): the 1986 Act upheld but read down, provision extending beyond iddat.
- - Mohd Abdul Samad v State of Telangana (2024): the 1986 Act does not oust S.125 at all; remedies are cumulative.
- Quote the "maintenance is not charity but a right" formulation in essay questions on the economic position of Muslim women.
- > [!warning] Reception
- > The All India Muslim Personal Law Board announced an intention to challenge the decision, and it has been cited in the wider debate about the Uniform Civil Code and the pending challenge to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937. Note the controversy, but the decision stands as the law.
Source
Source: 2024 INSC 506; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1686; MANU/SC/0604/2024. Criminal Appeal No 2842 of 2024, arising out of SLP (Crl) No 1614 of 2024. Judgment dated 10 July 2024. Bench, neutral citation, appeal number, date and holding verified on audit of 12 August 2026. No printed SCC report citation was established.
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.