2024 Supreme(SC) 570
B. V. NAGARATHNA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Mohd. Abdul Samad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana – Respondent
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tamim Qadri, Adv. Mr. Saeed Qadri, Adv. Mr. Shraveen Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Saahil Gupta, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Mishra, Adv. Ms. Udita Singh, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv./Amicus Curiae Mr. Manan Daga, Adv.
For the Respondent(s):Respondent-in-person
Judgement Key Points
- Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all married women, including Muslim married women, and extends to divorced women unable to maintain themselves, irrespective of personal law. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, as it is a secular provision for social justice protecting weaker sections, aligned with constitutional directives for women. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, does not override or extinguish rights under Section 125 of the CrPC; both provisions operate in parallel domains, with the 1986 Act providing additional remedies. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Non-obstante clauses in Sections 3 and 4 of the 1986 Act do not bar recourse to Section 125 of the CrPC, as there is no express conflict, and harmonious construction preserves both secular and personal law rights. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- A divorced Muslim woman may invoke Section 125 of the CrPC independently if unable to maintain herself, even post-iddat period, without restriction to personal law obligations. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Fulfillment of obligations under Section 3 of the 1986 Act or personal/customary law does not automatically cancel maintenance under Section 125; courts assess sufficiency via Section 127(3)(b) to avoid double benefit. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Section 125 of the CrPC is a complete code for maintenance, applicable alongside the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for women in shared households. (!) (!)
- Remarriage of a divorced Muslim woman does not nullify claims under the 1986 Act; courts balance awards under both statutes. (!) (!)
- Maintenance under Section 125 promotes dignity, prevents destitution, and balances husband's duty with financial capacity, irrespective of faith. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Equivalent rights under Section 125 of the CrPC and Section 3 of the 1986 Act coexist; a divorced Muslim woman has the option to seek remedies under either or both. (!) (!) (!)
- The 2019 Act provides subsistence allowance under Section 5 as an additional remedy to Section 125 for invalid talaq, without derogation. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the Order dated 13.12.2023 passed in Criminal Petition No. 12222 of 2023 moved Digitally signed by under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC 1973”), whereby the High Court of Telangana modified the Order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the Family Court in M.C No. 171 of 2019. By virtue of disposing of the said petition, the High Court decreased the quantum of interim maintenance payable by the Appellant herein from INR 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month to INR 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month.
3. As per the Appellant, the brief facts leading to the instant appeal are that the Appellant herein was the husband of the Respondent No. 02. Both the parties entered the matrimonial consortium on 15.11.2012. However, as their relationship deteriorated, Respondent No. 02 left the matrimonial home on 09.04.2016. Subsequently, Respondent No. 02 initiated criminal proceedings against the Appellant by lodging FIR No. 578 of 2017 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC 1860”
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
