In
a judgment of far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled
that a Muslim woman can seek maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of
the CrPC and said the "religion neutral" provision is applicable to
all married women irrespective of their religion.
The
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 will not prevail over
the secular law, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
said while stressing that maintenance is not charity but the right of all
married women.
"We are hereby dismissing the criminal appeal
with the major conclusion that Section 125 would be applicable to all
women...," Justice Nagarathna said while pronouncing the verdict.
The
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 will not prevail over
the secular and religion neutral provision of Section 125 of CrPC, the bench
said.
The
two judges gave separate but concurring verdicts.
The
erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure's Section 125, which deals with a wife's
legal right to maintenance, covers Muslim women, the bench said.
The
apex court dismissed the petition of a Mohammed Abdul Samad, who has challenged
a Telangana High Court order refusing to interfere with the maintenance order
of the family court.
He
contended that a divorced Muslim woman is not entitled for maintenance under
Section 125 of CrPC and has to invoke the provisions of the 1986 Act.
The
bench had reserved its verdict on February 19 after hearing senior advocate
Wasim Qadri for the petitioner. It had appointed advocate Gaurav Agarwal as
amicus curiae in the matter to assist the court.
Qadri
had submitted that the 1986 Act is more beneficial to Muslim woman as compared
to Section 125 of the CrPC.
On
December 13, 2023, the high court did not set aside the direction of the family
court for payment of interim maintenance by Samad to his estranged wife but
reduced the amount from Rs 20,000 to Rs 10,000 per month, to be paid from the
date of petition.
Samad
contended before the high court that they got divorced in accordance with
personal laws in 2017 and there was a divorce certificate to that effect, but
it was not considered by the Family Court, which ordered for payment of interim
maintenance.
Aggrieved
by the high court's order, Samad approached the top court.