Danial latifi &anr vs Union of India on 28 September,2001

Supreme Court of India

Danial Latifi & Anr vs Union Of India on 28 September, 2001

Author: R Babu
Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, S. Rajendra Babu, D.P. Mohapatra, Doraiswamy Raju, Shivaraj V. Patil

CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 868 of 1986

DANIAL LATIFI & ANR. …PETITIONER

Vs.

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDANT

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/09/2001

JUDGMENT

FACTS OF 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 favor and upheld the right to alimony for Muslim 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 entitled to reasonable and
fair maintenance during the “Iddat” period, denying divorced wives from their former
husbands 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 divorced Muslim 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 Divorce) Act, 1986.

LEGAL 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?

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
  The purpose of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was to meet a situation wherein a divorced wife was
likely to get benefitted from divorce so taking into consideration the Article 21 of the
Constitution of India which is related to Protection of Life and Personal Liberty. Sec 125 of
Cr.P.C. was enacted to prevent such situations.
 There Could be violations of Article 14 & Article 21, if remedies of section 125 in relation with
Muslim Women are not applied.
 If the applicability of the provisions of sec 125 of Cr.P.C. were not applied in relation to
muslim women who are deprived then it will be against the secular character of constitution
of India.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION

1. The Parliament could change sec 125 of Cr.P.C. so as to set aside its application and apply
personal law instead.
2. In a matter of Policy, the legislature wants to apply sec 125 Cr.P.C.. to muslim women then it
can be amended, withdraw or change its implementation and its provisions.
3. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is not made to create right of maintenance which may be out side the
scope of personal law, hence it could not stand as an act.

JUDGEMENT OF CASE

Supreme Court upholding the validity of the act, decided as follows:-

1. Muslim Husband is liable to pay maintenance which might be extended beyond the Iddat
Period in terms of Sec 3(1)(a) and also make reasonable and fair provisions for divorced wife
for her future.
2. If divorced muslim women who has not remarried and who is not able to maintain herself
after Iddat period can proceed under Sec. 4 of the act which says that she should be
maintained by relatives in proportion of the her property which her relatives inherit after her
death.
3. If relatives are not able to maintain her, Magistrate may direct the State Wakf Board stabilize
under the act to pay such maintenance.
4. Article 14,15 and 21 of Constitution of India is not offended by the provision of the act.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------