Editorial: Landmark verdict

By affirming that maintenance is a right for all married women, the SC has taken a significant step towards gender justice

The personal laws of any religion should not be allowed to become instruments to perpetuate injustice and rob women of dignity and right to equality. The Supreme Court’s latest ruling that all divorced women, irrespective of their religion, are entitled to claim maintenance from their husbands under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), is a landmark verdict and marks a moment of triumph for equality and gender justice. Maintenance is not a form of charity but a fundamental right of all women cutting across religious lines. A two-member bench, comprising BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, rightly upheld the principle of equality and unequivocally ruled that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, will not prevail over Section 125 of the CrPC. The ruling came in response to an appeal by Mohammed Abdul Samad, who challenged the Telangana High Court’s decision to uphold a family court’s maintenance order. Samad argued that a divorced Muslim woman should seek maintenance solely under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. However, the SC dismissed his appeal, asserting that Section 125 is a secular provision applicable to all women. The judgment is a tribute to the judiciary’s commitment to the protection of the fundamental rights of the citizens. The latest verdict is reminiscent of the historic Shah Bano case, where the apex court ruled in favour of a divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under Section 125.

Despite the subsequent enactment of the 1986 Act, which initially sought to limit this right, the court’s recent decision reinforces the enduring applicability of Section 125. If this section is excluded from its application to a divorced Muslim woman, then it would amount to a violation of Article 15(1) of the Constitution which states that the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, and caste. The 2001 Danial Latifi case upheld the 1986 Act but extended maintenance rights beyond the ‘iddat’ ( 90 days) until remarriage. India of 2024 is vastly different from India of 1986 when the case of Shah Bano first highlighted the rights of Muslim women. Bowing to pressure from orthodox sections, the then Congress government, headed by Rajiv Gandhi, overturned, through legislative interference, the landmark Supreme Court verdict granting alimony to Shah Bano, a mother of five children from Indore divorced by her husband. The latest ruling ensures that Muslim women are not deprived of their entitlements. By affirming that maintenance is a right for all married women, the court has taken a significant step towards gender justice in India. This ruling not only upholds constitutional principles but also strengthens the social and economic security of Muslim women, setting a precedent for future cases. It reinforces the principle that no woman should be left without protection under the law.

---