Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 570

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Mohd. Abdul Samad – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Telangana & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2842 of 2024 [Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 1614 of 2024]
Decided on : 10-07-2024

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

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Section 125 of Cr.P.C. applies to all married women including Muslim married women – Section 125 of Cr.P.C. applies to all non-Muslim divorced women.
(2) Remarriage of a divorced Muslim woman does not nullify her claim to a just settlement under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Court would have to ultimately balance between amount awarded under 1986 Act and one to be awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
(3) Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is independent of and in addition to maintenance that could be awarded under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is applicable to an aggrieved woman in a shared household.
(4) Equivalent rights of maintenance ascertained under both, secular provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and personal law provision of Section 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, parallely exist in their distinct domains and jurisprudence.
(5) Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is independent of and in addition to maintenance that could be awarded under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is applicable to an aggrieved woman in a shared household.

Headnote:
Per Augustine George Masih, J.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 144] – Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Sections 3 and 4 – Award of interim maintenance – Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 1973 is a measure for social justice to protect weaker sections, irrespective of applicable personal laws of parties, as contemplated through Articles 15(3) and 38 of Constitution of India – Rights under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 would also be accessible to a divorced Muslim woman – Woman seeking maintenance has to establish that she is unable to maintain herself – Right to seek maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is invocable even during sustenance of marriage and, thereby is not contingent upon divorce – Existence of non-obstante clause in Sections 3 and 4 of 1986 Act cannot promptly be deemed to override any other rights so provided by enactments of legislature – High Court of Telangana, while modifying Order(s) of Family Court, was correct in upholding maintainability of petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 by Respondent – There is no infirmity in impugned Order. (Paras 12, 22, 28 and 29)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 125 and 127 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 144 and 146] – Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Sections 3 and 5 – Award of interim maintenance – Parliament never sought to restrict rights of a divorced Muslim woman to Iddat period – A divorced Muslim woman is not restricted from exercising her independent right of maintenance under secular provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973, provided she is able to prove requisites encompassed by said statute – There ought to be a reasonable substitute for maintenance under personal or customary law equating to a rational nexus between actual sum of maintenance paid and potential of maintenance under equivalent provision of secular law – In a case where a husband has fulfilled his obligations under Section 3 of 1986 Act or as provided by customary or personal law so followed, and divorced Muslim woman subsequently prefers to invoke Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 on the ground of inability to maintain herself, in such a factual matrix, right to move under this provision is open in favour of a divorced Muslim woman – Equivalent rights of maintenance ascertained under both, secular provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and personal law provision of Section 3 of 1986 Act, parallely exist in their distinct domains and jurisprudence – Impugned Order passed by High Court of Telangana affirmed. (Paras 32, 33, 35, 37, 38 and 40)
Per B.V. Nagarathna, J. (Separate Concurring View)
(A) Constitution of India – Articles 15(3) and 39 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 144] – Award of interim maintenance – Statutory right to seek maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is also embedded in text, structure and philosophy of Constitution – Article 15(3) read with Article 39(e) manifests a constitutional commitment towards special measures to ensure a life of dignity for women at all stages of their lives – This ought to be irrespective of faith a woman belongs to – Remedy of maintenance is a critical source of succour for destitute, deserted and deprived sections of women – It is an instantiation of constitutional philosophy of social justice that seeks to liberate Indian wife including a divorced woman from shackles of gender-based discrimination, disadvantage and deprivation – Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is independent of and in addition to maintenance that could be awarded under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is applicable to an aggrieved woman in a shared household. (Paras 6 and 7)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 144] – Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Sections 3 and 4 – Award of interim maintenance – Passing of 1986 Act cannot militate against or dilute salutary nature of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. – Object of this provision is to save a wife including a divorced woman from deprivation and destitution – A neglected dependent wife, which also includes a divorced woman who has no other source of income, has to perforce take recourse to borrowings from her parents/relatives/others during interregnum to sustain herself and minor children, till she receives interim maintenance – Law of maintenance strikes a careful, just and fair balance between husband’s sacrosanct duty towards his wife and children and social imperative of not imposing oppressive or punitive financial hardship on husband. (Paras 8, 10 and 11)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 144] – Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Sections 3 and 4 – Award of interim maintenance – A Muslim divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. irrespective of her personal law – Rights created under provisions of 1986 Act are in addition to and not in derogation of right created under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. – Section 125 of Cr.P.C. applies to a Muslim woman also and definition of wife in Section 125 of Cr.P.C. including a divorced wife (irrespective of faith she follows) would not detract from such a divorced Muslim wife also claiming maintenance under that provision – This is despite Section 3 creating new rights insofar as such a divorced Muslim woman is concerned – Intent of Parliament which can be gathered from use of such a non-obstante clause is to enhance right of a divorced Muslim woman in addition to what she would have been entitled to under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. – Inspite of option of seeking maintenance under provisions of 1986 Act, Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is applicable to a divorced Muslim woman – If a divorced Muslim woman approaches Magistrate for enforcement of her rights under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., she cannot be turned away to seek relief only under Sections 3 and 4 of 1986 Act – Remarriage of a divorced Muslim woman does not nullify her claim to a just settlement under 1986 Act – Court would have to ultimately balance between amount awarded under 1986 Act and one to be awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Paras 28, 29, 30, 36 and 37)
(D) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 – Section 5 – Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Sections 3 and 4 – Subsistence allowance – In case a woman has been divorced in a valid manner, she can approach Magistrate under 1986 Act but if she has been victim of mischief defined under 2019 Act, then her right to subsistence allowance is secured through Section 5 of 2019 Act – Parliament seeks to provide adequate remedies to women from economic deprivation that may result from marital discord, irrespective of their status as a married or divorced woman – Prior to a divorce in accordance with law, a married woman has access to maintenance under general law, i.e., Section 125 of CrPC and under a special law, i.e., 2019 Act – When divorce is void and illegal, such a Muslim woman can also seek remedy under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Para 41)
(E) Social Justice – Vulnerability of Married Women in India – Paradigm shift from viewing maintenance as a mere charity to a matter of parity and rights, essential for women – An Indian married man must become conscious of fact that he would have to financially empower and provide for his wife, who does not have an independent source of income, by making available financial resources particularly towards her personal needs – Those Indian married men who are conscious of this aspect and who make available their financial resources for their spouse towards their personal expenses, apart from household expenditure, possibly by having a joint bank account or via an ATM card, must be acknowledged – Both ‘financial security’ as well as ‘security of residence’ of Indian women have to be protected and enhanced – That would truly empower such Indian women who are referred to as ‘homemakers’ and who are strength and backbone of an Indian family which is fundamental unit of Indian society which has to be maintained and strengthened – A strong Indian family and society would ultimately lead to a stronger nation – But, for that to happen, women in family have to be respected and empowered. (Paras 42, 45 and 47)
(F) Interpretation of Statute – Non-obstante clause – Non-obstante clause is a legislative device used by a Parliament or legislature sometimes to give an overriding effect to what has been specified in enacting part of a section in case of a conflict with what is contained in non-obstante clause – Non-obstante clause has to be distinguished from expression “subject to” where latter would convey idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject to – Expression “notwithstanding anything in any other law” in a Section of an Act has to be contrasted with use of expression “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act”, which has to be construed to take away effect of any provision of that particular Act in which the section occurs but it cannot take away effect of any other law. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges Order dated 13.12.2023 passed in Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereby High Court of Telangana modified Order dated 09.06.2023 passed by Family Court. By virtue of disposing of said petition, High Court decreased quantum of interim maintenance payable by Appellant from INR 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month to INR 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month.
Findings of Court:
A stable family which is emotionally connected and secure gives stability to society for, it is within family that precious values of life are learnt and built. It is these moral and ethical values which are inherited by a succeeding generation which would go a long way in building a strong Indian society which is need of hour. A strong Indian family and society would ultimately lead to a stronger nation. But, for that to happen, women in family have to be respected and empowered.
Result : Criminal Appeal dismissed.

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”). In response, the Appellant herein pronounced a triple talaq on 25.09.2017 and moved for divorce before the office of Quzath seeking a declaration of divorce, which was eventually granted ex parte, and the divorce certificate was issued on 28.09.2017.

4. It is further claimed that he attempted to send INR 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) apropos maintenance for the iddat period, which the Respondent No. 02 is said to have refused. Instead, she moved a petition for interim maintenance under Section 125(1) of CrPC 1973 before the Family Court vide M.C. No. 171 of 2019, which was consequently allowed vide Order dated 09.06.2023. Seeking quashing of the said Order, the Appellant herein moved the High Court of Telangana, eventually leading to passing of the instant Impugned Order dated 13.12.2023.

5. The prime contention of the Appellant while moving this Court is that the provisions of Section 125 of CrPC 1973 do not prevail in light of the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “1986 Act”). Furthermore, it is contended that even if a “divorced Muslim woman” seeks to move the court under the secular provision of Section 125 of CrPC 1973, it would not be maintainable, rather the correct procedure would be to file an application under Section 5 of the 1986 Act, which is not the case herein.

6. To substantiate the said contentions, the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant herein, vehemently argued that since the 1986 Act provides a more beneficial and efficacious remedy for divorced Muslim women in contradistinction to Section 125 of CrPC 1973, thereby the recourse lies exclusively under the 1986 Act. In addition, it is submitted that the 1986 Act being a special law, prevails over the provisions of CrPC 1973. To buttress his contentions, reliance is placed on a decision rendered by a 3-Judge Bench in M/s. Jain Ink Manufacturing Company v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another (1980) 4 SCC 435 wherein this Court went on to hold that a special law would supersede a general law and if such conflicting statutes are passed by the same legislature, the rule of harmonious construction is to be applied while interpreting the said statutes. Several other judgments to this effect were also brought to our notice with the similar position being reiterated as in a recent judgment of this Court in Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2023) 8 SCC 251.

7. He further emphasised that Sections 3 and 4 of the 1986 Act, commencing with a non-obstante clause, shall have an overriding effect on any other statute operating in the same field. An acknowledgment to this effect is said to have been found in a 5-Judge Bench in Danial Latifi and Another v. Union of India (2