Shakila Khatun vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2103

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJ BEER SINGH, J.
Shakila Khatun – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 3573 of 2021
Decided On : 21-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Chandra Bhushan Tiwari.
For the Respondent: Vinayak Varma.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance for divorced Muslim women - A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even after the iddat period unless she remarries - The Family Court's rejection of the revisionist's claim based solely on her status as a divorced woman is contrary to established law - Relevant cases cited include Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Danial Latifi vs. Union of India. (Paras 8, 10, 11, 15)

(B) Status of divorced Muslim women - The welfare and social justice principles necessitate that divorced Muslim women have the right to seek maintenance beyond the iddat period - Courts must prioritize the rights of divorced women in line with societal norms and justice. (Paras 9, 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The revisionist, a divorced Muslim woman, filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after being divorced in 2009. Her claim was dismissed by the Family Court, which stated that divorced Muslim women are not entitled to maintenance under this provision.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the Family Court's order to be contrary to the well-settled law that allows divorced Muslim women to claim maintenance after the iddat period as long as they do not remarry.

Issues: Whether a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. beyond the iddat period?

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the provisions of Section 125 control over personal law and that divorced Muslim women have a right to maintenance as a measure of social justice and gender equality.

Result: Impugned order set aside; the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. background of the case and parties involved (Para 1 , 6)
2. arguments regarding maintenance claim (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's observations on maintenance entitlement (Para 5 , 7 , 15)
4. legal principles governing maintenance for divorced muslim women (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. remand for fresh hearing on maintenance claim (Para 16)

JUDGMENT :

RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

1. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.09.2021, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghazipur, in Case No. 665 of 2020 ( Smt. Shakila Khatun and Others vs. Ali Husen ), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the case of revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that impugned judgment and order is against the facts and law and thus liable to be set aside. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that marriage/Nikah of revisionist with opposite party No. 2 has taken place in the year 2006 but she was harassed by the opposite party No. 2 on account of dowry and later on she was divorced by the opposite party No. 2 on 20.08.2009. The revisionist has not re-married so far. The revisionist along with her minor children has filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the opposite party No. 2 but the claim of revisionist was rejected by the Court below vide impugned order by holding that divorced Muslim woman is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Referring to impugned judgment and order, it is submitted that the claim of revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected merely on the said ground that she, being divorced wife, is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is against settled position of law. Learned counsel has referred the case of Danial Latifi vs. Union of India , 2001 Law Suit (SC) 1293 and case of this Court in Jubair Ahmad vs. Ishrat Bano , 2019 (3) DMC 789 and submitted that in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, which has been followed by this Court, it is clear that a divorced Muslim wife is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even after the iddat period, till she re-marries. It is also submitted that there is absolutely no such evidence that divorce between the parties took place by mutual consent or that she was residing separately by mutual consent. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned order is against well settled position of law and thus liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has opposed the revision and argued that the revisionist has filed the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. making false and baseless allegations. Referring to impugned judgment, it was submitted that the revisionist was divorced with mutual consent of both the parties and she is residing separately with mutual consent and thus, the revisionist is not entitled for any maintenance. The allegations made by the revisionist, are thoroughly false. Even before the divorce, she had been residing separately from her husband without any just cause. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and thus, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The perusal of record shows that that the marriage/Nikah of revisionist with opposite party No. 2 has taken place in the year 2006 but she was divorced by the opposite party No. 2 on 20.08.2009. The revisionist has not re-married so far. The revisionist along with her minor children has filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the opposite party No. 2 claiming maintenance for herself and her minor children. The Family Court granted maintenance to the minor daughter of the parties but the claim of