‘Divorced Muslim Women Can Seek Maintenance From Husband’

New Delhi (Ajoy Kumar Misra): The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, adding that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, will not prevail over the secular law. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih pronounced the judgments upholding a Muslim woman’s right while hearing a Muslim man’s petition in the top court challenging Telangana high court’s direction to pay ₹10,000 interim maintenance to his ex-wife.

The court also reportedly ruled that if, during the pendency of any application under Section 125 CrPC, a Muslim woman gets divorced, then she can take recourse to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. “We are hereby dismissing the criminal appeal with the major conclusion that Section 125 CrPC would be applicable to all women and not just married women,” Justice Nagarathna said, pronouncing the verdict, as quoted by Bar and Bench.

The Supreme Court’s judgement pertains to the case ‘Mohd Abdul Samad vs State of Telangana and anr’, in which the petitioner (the husband) raised grievances over the filing of claims seeking maintenance from his former wife, whom he got a divorce in 2017. Initially, a family court had directed Abdul Samad to pay an interim maintenance of ₹20,000 per month to his ex-wife. Initially, a family court had directed Abdul Samad to pay an interim maintenance of ₹20,000 per month to his ex-wife.

However, he challenged this decision before the Telangana high court on the grounds that the couple was divorced as per the Muslim personal law. According to the petitioner, a divorced Muslim woman is not entitled to claim any alimony under Section 125 CrPC in view of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, reported Bar and Bench. Following this, the high court reduced the maintenance to ₹10,000 per month. The petitioner husband, then, approached the Supreme Court challenging the high court’s decision.