Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)(AIR 945; 1985 SCR (3) 844)

This Case Analysis is written by Disha Hirwani, she is a 2nd-semester LL.B. student at Aishwarya College of Education and Law. She also serves as an author at Lexful Legal.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Five-judge Constitutional Bench

1. Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud (CJI, authored the judgment)
2. Justice D.A. Desai
3. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy
4. Justice E.S. Venkataramiah
5. Justice Rangnath Misra

Date of Judgement: 23rd April, 1985

Relevant provisions or statutes:

• Section 125 of CrPC, 1973
• Supported by Articles 14, 21, and 44 of the Indian Constitution
• In relation to Muslim Personal Law (iddat & mehr)

Facts of the Shah Bano Case

• Shah Bano Begum, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, was married to Mohd. Ahmed Khan was born in 1932 in Indore.
• The couple had been married for over 40 years and were blessed with five children.
• In 1975, due to family differences, Mohd. Ahmed Khan threw Shah Bano out of the matrimonial home.
• She was left with no independent means of livelihood, being elderly and dependent on her husband.
• In 1978, Mohd. Ahmed Khan pronounced triple talaq, formally divorcing Shah Bano.
• After the divorce, he paid her ₹200 per month for two years but later stopped paying maintenance.
• Khan argued that, under Muslim personal law, he was only liable to: Pay mehr (dower) of ₹3000, and Provide maintenance during the Iddat period (approximately 3 months after divorce).
• Shah Bano, unable to sustain herself, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance of ₹500 per month.
• Section 125 CrPC is a secular provision that allows a wife (including divorced wives) who cannot maintain herself to claim maintenance from her husband.
• Magistrate: Ordered Khan to pay monthly maintenance to Shah Bano.
• Madhya Pradesh High Court: Enhanced the amount to ₹179.20 per month.
• Mohd. Ahmed Khan’s Appeal: Argued that personal law (Shariat) prevails over CrPC, and hence he is not liable beyond iddat.
• The case reached the Supreme Court of India, raising questions about the intersection of secular law and Muslim personal law, the scope of Section 125 CrPC, and the rights of divorced women to maintenance.

Issues

1. Whether section 125 CrPC applies to Muslims, or is excluded by Muslim Personal Law?
2. Whether a Muslim husband’s liability ends with mehr and iddat?
3. Whether the term wife under section 125 includes a divorced Muslim woman who has not remarried?
4. Whether denying maintenance violates Article 14 and 21, and the relevance of Article 44?

Judgement

A. Applicability of section 125 CrPC:

Section 125 CrPC is secular and gender-neutral, providing maintenance for wives, children, and parents who cannot maintain themselves. The Court clarified that this section includes divorced wives who have not remarried, irrespective of their religion. Therefore, Shah Bano, a divorced Muslim woman, was entitled to claim maintenance under this provision.

B. On Mehr and Iddat:

The Court held that Mehr (dower) and maintenance during the iddat period are not substitutes for ongoing maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. While mehr is a contractual obligation and iddat maintenance is temporary, Section 125 CrPC ensures long-term protection for women unable to maintain themselves.

C. Personal Law vs. Secular Law:

Mohd. Ahmed Khan argued that Muslim Personal Law limited his liability to the iddat period. The Court rejected this, stating that secular statutory law prevails over personal law in matters of social justice and protection of women. Therefore, Muslim personal law cannot nullify the operation of Section 125 CrPC.

D. Constitutional Backing:

Article 14 (Equality): Denying maintenance would be discriminatory and unconstitutional, violating the principle of equality before the law.

Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity): The Court held that maintenance is essential to live with dignity, especially for vulnerable divorced women.
Article 44 (Uniform Civil Code): The Court highlighted the need for a UCC to remove inequalities across personal laws.

Ratio Decidendi:

• A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if she cannot maintain herself.
• Mehr and iddat are not substitutes for maintenance.
• Secular statutory law overrides personal law in matters of social justice.
• Denial of maintenance violates Articles 14 and 21.
• The judgment reinforced the constitutional vision of gender equality and highlighted the need for a Uniform Civil Code (Article 44).

Final Decision:

Shah Bano was awarded ₹179.20 per month as maintenance by the Supreme Court.

The Court directed that:

1. The amount should be paid regularly and without delay.
2. Maintenance should continue beyond the iddat period, until she can support herself or remarries.
3. The husband, having adequate means, must comply with the order in full.

1. Applicability of Section 125 CrPC: Section 125 applies to all citizens, including Muslims, irrespective of personal law. A divorced woman who cannot maintain herself is entitled to maintenance.
2. Mehr and Iddat Maintenance: Payment of mehr and maintenance during iddat is not a substitute for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The husband’s liability under CrPC is independent of personal law obligations.
3. Personal Law vs. Secular Law: Muslim Personal Law cannot override statutory protection provided by CrPC. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the supremacy of secular law in matters of social justice and the protection of women.
4. Constitutional Backing: Articles 14 and 21: Denying maintenance would violate equality and dignity. Article 44 (Directive Principle – UCC): The Court emphasized the need for a Uniform Civil Code to ensure gender equality in personal law matters.

Significance of the Shah Bano Case

1. Landmark Judgment for Women’s Rights: The case was a turning point in Indian family law, especially for Muslim women. It recognized the right of divorced women to maintenance beyond the iddat period, protecting them from destitution. Ensured that women, regardless of religion, have a legal right to live with dignity and financial security after divorce.
2. Secular Law Supremacy: Affirmed that Section 125 CrPC, a secular statutory law, applies to all citizens, including Muslims. Clarified that personal laws cannot override secular law in cases concerning maintenance and social justice. Strengthened the principle of rule of law and equal protection under law (Article 14).
3. Protection of Fundamental Rights: Reinforced Article 14 (Right to Equality) – a divorced woman cannot be discriminated against due to religion or gender. Reinforced Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity) – maintenance ensures she can live with dignity after divorce. Set a precedent that constitutional values supersede discriminatory personal laws.
4. Clarification on Personal Law vs. Statutory Law: Highlighted that Muslim personal law cannot limit statutory obligations such as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Established the legal principle that religion-based personal laws cannot violate constitutional protections or statutory provisions enacted for social justice.
5. Social and Political Impact: Sparked national debate on gender justice vs. personal law, highlighting the conflict between religious norms and constitutional principles. Raised public awareness about the economic vulnerability of divorced women, encouraging the state to take protective measures. Empowered women to assert their legal rights, influencing future judgments on maintenance, domestic violence, and women’s rights

Author – Disha Hirwani