1

Danial Latifi and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI)

AIR2001SC3958
Corum: G.B. Pattanaik, S. Rajendra Babu, D.P. Mohapatra, Doraiswamy Raju and Shivaraj V.
Patil, JJ.
Facts of the case
 Shah Bano, a 62-year-old woman from Madhya Pradesh, who was divorced by her
husband in 1978, filed a case for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
 The Supreme Court ruled in her favour and upheld the right to alimony for Musli m
women. When the Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act, 1986, which effectively invalidated the decision in the Shah Bano case, she
was denied maintenance.
 Section 3(1) of the Act stated that divorced Muslim women are en titled to reasonable
and fair maintenance during the “Iddat” period, denying divorced wives from their
former husband’s subsequent and further maintenance.
 Danial Latifi, the counsel of Shah Bano, viewed the Act passed to be in derogation of
certain provisions of the Constitution because a wife who depended on her husband
before marriage has the right to life even after marriage.
 As a result, this Act infringes on Article 21 of the Constitution. The Act violated Articles
14 and 15 as well as denied divorcedMuslim women the same maintenance benefits as
other divorced women under Section 125 of the CrPC.
 Therefore, Daniel Latifi filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court challenging the
constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divo rce) Act,
1986
Issues
 Whether Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,
1986 inconsistent with Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India?
 Whether the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
constitutionally sound?
Contentions
 The petitioner claimed that Section 125 of the CrPC was framed to address a situation in
which a divorced wife was likely to benefit from the divorce, considering Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution, which deals with protecting life and personal liberty.
 If the remedies under section 125 are applied in the case of divorced Muslim women, it
will violate Articles 14, 15, and 21.
 It would be against the secular character of the Constitution if section 125 of the CrPC
were not applied in relation to deprived Muslim women.

OUR WEBSITE ambitionlawinstitute.com BUY BEST BARE ACTs. Ambitionpublications.com WE ARE ALSO ON
 2

 The challenge raised in this petition, according to the Solicitor General, was outside
personal law.
Ratio Decidendi
Justice S. Rajendra Babu:While upholding the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the bench observed that under Sec 3(1)(a), a
Muslim husband is responsible for paying maintenance, which may be extended beyond the
Iddat period, as well as making reasonable and fair provisions for his divorcedfe’s
wi future.
If a divorced Muslim woman has not remarried and is unable to support herself after the Iddat
period, she can file a claim under Section 4 of the act, which states that she should be supported
by relatives in proportion to the property she lea
ves to her relatives after her death.
If her relatives cannot support her, the Magistrate may order the State Wakf Board to pay her
support under the Act. The provisions of the Act do not violate Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the
Indian Constitution.
Decision
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the view that the wording of Section 3
(1), “reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat
period by her former husband” was interpreted to mean that the husban d must pay maintenance
to the wife before the iddat period expires and that if he cannot do so, the wife may recover it as
provided in Section 3(3) of the Act.
However, nowhere does it state that reasonable and fair provision and maintenance is limited to
the iddat period and not beyond it.
The Court ruled that a husband’s obligation to support and maintain his wife extends for the rest
of the divorced wife’s life unless she marries again.

OUR WEBSITE ambitionlawinstitute.com BUY BEST BARE ACTs. Ambitionpublications.com WE ARE ALSO ON