In another significant ruling, the Patna High Court recently re-established the legal provision that a Muslim woman, who is unable to maintain herself after divorce, also has a right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). As per the judgement of the High Court, it could be understood that even if the former husband has paid maintenance during the iddat period or Dainmehar, he can’t be exempted from his obligation to provide for his former wife in case there aren’t any adequate provisions for her sustenance.
From this judgement, it could again be emphasised that the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, will not negate a muslim woman’s right to seek maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
Referring to relevant Supreme Court judgements, Justice Jitendra Kumar in this case mentioned that, “Despite the Act of 1986, a Muslim wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband during the subsistence of her marriage under Section 125 CrPC, if she is unable to maintain herself. Even after divorce, she is entitled to get maintenance from her former husband under Section 125 CrPC if she is unable to maintain herself despite payment of maintenance for the iddat period or Dainmehar. If the former husband has not made sufficient provisions for her livelihood, she can claim maintenance.”
Mentioning the landmark Danial Latifi case as well as the recent judgment in Md. Abdul Samad’s case, the Court gave a detailed explanation regarding the matter of maintenance of Muslim women after divorce.
Facts of the Case-
- The petitioner, married her husband (respondent) in the year 2007 as per the Islamic rituals, having a daughter from the marriage, during the marriage, the husband as well as her in-laws started demanding an additional dowry of ₹2,00,000.
- The petitioner alleged that when she was unable to fulfill the demands made by the in-laws, she was subjected to cruelty which led to her being eventually driven out of her matrimonial house. Later she filed a criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC against her husband.
- The petitioner later filed for a maintenance of ₹20,000 per month so as to support herself and her daughter, mentioning that the husband owned a boutique in Mumbai from which he earned around ₹30,000 per month, had some agricultural land, also owned another shop.
- On the other hand, the husband in his defense, denied the allegations made by the wife related to the claims of cruelty as well as dowry harassment. He claimed that the wife had been living in adultery and that she refused to return to her matrimonial home.
- Further, he argued that they were divorced through triple talaq in the village panchayat in the year 2012 and that he had already paid her Dainmehar and maintenance during her iddat period.
- The Court, however, found no substantive evidence supporting the claims of the husband.
- It observed, “there is no need to go into the claim of the opposite party that he has divorced his wife because it is not a case where the opposite party has made provisions for the whole life of his divorced wife during the iddat period. It is also not a case where the opposite party claims that his divorced wife has remarried.”
- Rejecting the claims by the husband regarding adultery, the Court observed that, “there is only an allegation that petitioner no. 1 is leading an adulterous life, but such an allegation is based on suspicion. There is no cogent evidence in support of this claim. The proven fact is that the wife is living separately along with her minor daughter and is unable to maintain herself and the minor daughter.”
- Earlier, the Family Court had awarded an amount of ₹1,500 per month to the wife from the date it passed the order, as well as an amount of ₹5,000 as litigation costs, however no maintenance was granted in favour of the minor daughter. The wife, as a result challenged the inadequacy of the amount granted by the Court as maintenance as well as the omission for any amount for the support of the daughter.
Observation by the High Court
- Considering the statements submitted by both parties, the High Court held in favor of the wife and daughter, mentioning that both were entitled to maintenance.
- Thus, taking in notice the dependants with the husband which include his aging parents as well as his second wife, the Court ordered him to pay an amount of ₹2,000 per month each to his former wife and daughter, thus totaling to an amount ₹4,000 per month.
- The judgement by the High Court does highlight the fact that a Muslim woman has the right to claim maintenance provided under Section 125 CrPC in case she is unable to sustain herself after divorce, even after the fact that she did receive maintenance during her iddat period.
Concluding, the significance of the recent judgement by the High Court could be summarised in following points-
- Maintenance could be claimed by a Muslim woman as well under Section 125 CrPC, in case she is not able to maintain herself.
- The provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, shall not override the remedy provided under Section 125 of CrPC.
- Also the fact that the payment during the iddat period or Dainmehar will not completely absolve the husband from his responsibility in case adequate provision regarding the maintenance of the wife have not been made.
- Also, the Court held that allegations of adultery in the absence of any substantial proof cannot be basis enough to deny maintenance.
- The minor daughter, shall also be entitled to maintenance from her father
To follow similar informations, or information on any other subject, you may follow Sharks of Law on Youtube or Instagram. In case you need to talk to a lawyer online or seek free legal counsel for any matter related to divorce, maintenance, marriage registration, custody of children, dowry demands, etc, you may contact us at Sharks of Law through the following information.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
