Mohd. Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum
Rule established
A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under S.125 CrPC (now S.144 BNSS) even after the iddat period if she is unable to maintain herself; the secular provision of maintenance applies to all women irrespective of religion.
Facts
- Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, was divorced by her husband Mohd. Ahmed Khan through triple talaq after 43 years of marriage. She filed an application under S.125 CrPC for maintenance. The husband contended that under Muslim personal law, his obligation was limited to maintenance during the iddat period (approximately three months) and payment of mehr, after which he had no further liability.
Issue
- Whether S.125 CrPC (secular maintenance provision) applies to Muslim divorced women beyond the iddat period; and whether Muslim personal law limits a husband's maintenance liability to the iddat period only.
Held
- S.125 CrPC is a secular provision enacted to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It overrides personal law and applies to all persons regardless of religion. A Muslim husband's obligation to maintain his divorced wife continues beyond the iddat period if she is unable to maintain herself. The Court also observed that the Quran, properly interpreted, does not restrict maintenance to the iddat period but requires reasonable provision for a divorced wife. The Court expressed the hope that Article 44 would be given effect through a Uniform Civil Code.
Ratio Decidendi
S.125 CrPC is a secular, criminal provision aimed at preventing destitution that applies to all persons irrespective of religion. Personal law does not override S.125. A divorced woman of any religion who is unable to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance from her former husband under this provision.
How to use it in an exam
- Landmark case connecting maintenance law across personal law systems
- Relevant for S.125 CrPC/S.144 BNSS maintenance questions
- Historical context: led to passage of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (which was later reinterpreted in Danial Latifi v. Union of India, 2001)
- Uniform Civil Code (Art.44) discussion
- Compare with S.18 Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for Hindu maintenance provisions
Source
Source: AIR 1985 SC 945; 5-judge bench; one of the most cited Indian family law cases
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.