NAME OF STUDENT :- MS.

SIDDHI YUVRAJ PATIL

CLASS :- PRE LAW 5TH YEAR
ROLL NUMBER :- 21
YEAR :- 2023-2024
TITLE OF THE CASE :- MOHD. AHMED KHAN

V/S

SHAH BANU BEGUM

A. TITLE
MOHD. AHMED KHAN
V/S
SHAH BANU BEGUM

B. CITATION
AIR (1985) SC 945, 1985 SCR (3) 844

C. LEGAL PROVISIONS

Sec 125 Code of Criminal Procedure

Sec 127 Code of Criminal Procedure

D. FACTS
Mohd Ahmed Khan (the appealing party) who was a lawyer by profession, married to
Shah Bano Begum (the respondent) in 1932, had three sons and two daughters from
this marriage. In 1975, when Shah Bano’s age was 62 years, she was disowned by her
spouse and was tossed out from her marital home together with her children.

In 1978, she filed an appeal in the presence of Judicial Magistrate of Indore, because
she was abandoned from the maintenance of Rs. 200 per month, which was
guaranteed to be provided by him. She demanded Rs. 500 per month as maintenance.
Subsequently, the husband gave her irrevocable triple talaq on November 6th, 1978,
and used it as a defence to not pay maintenance.

The magistrate, in August 1979, directed the husband to pay an entirety of Rs 25 per
month as maintenance. Shah Bano in July 1908 made a plea to the High Court of M.P,
to change the sum of maintenance to Rs. 179 each month, and high court increased
the maintenance to the said amount i.e. Rs. 179 per month.

The same was challenged by the spouse within the Supreme Court as a special leave
petition to the High court’s decision.
E. ISSUES
1. Criminal Procedure Code (II of 1974), Section 125. Whether the “WIFE”
definition includes a divorced Muslim woman?

2. Criminal Procedure Code (II of 1974), Section 125. Whether it overrides personal
law?

3. Criminal Procedure Code (II of 1974), Section 125. Whether a Muslim husband’s
obligation to provide maintenance for a divorced wife is in or not in the conflict
between section 125 and Muslim Personal Law?

4. Criminal Procedure Code (II of 1974), Section 127(3) (b). What is the sum
payable on divorce? The meaning of Mehar or dower is not summed payable on
divorce?

F. PETITIONER ARGUMENTS

 Maintenance under the Muslim Personal Law Board: The petitioner in

Shah Bano case argued that the responsibility for providing maintenance to
Muslim women rested with the Muslim Personal Law Board and civil courts
lacked the authority to grant maintenance to Muslim women under Muslim
Personal Law.
 Shariah Law: The petitioner contended that according to the principles of
Shariah Law, as interpreted by the Muslim Personal Law Board, a Muslim
husband was not obligated to provide maintenance to his divorced wife
beyond the iddat period, which is three months after the divorce.
 Interpretation of the Quran: The petitioner in Shah Bano case argued that
the Quran did not mandate Muslim husbands to offer maintenance to their
divorced wives beyond the iddat period.
 Constitutional Validity of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code: The
petitioner claimed that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which
addresses maintenance for wives, children and parents, was unconstitutional
because it contradicted personal law principles.
  Discrimination against Muslim husbands: The petitioner in Shah Bano case
maintained that requiring Muslim husbands to provide post-iddat maintenance
constituted discrimination against them, as this requirement did not apply to
husbands of other religions.

G. RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS

She was represented by Advocate Daniel Latifi who also challenged the
validity of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce Act),1986.

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986: The

respondent in Shah Bano case argued that this act, which aimed to overturn the
Supreme Court’s decision, was constitutional and essential for safeguarding
the rights of Muslim women.

Interpretation of Quranic Injunctions: The respondent contended that the

Quranic guidelines on maintenance and divorce should be interpreted in a
manner consistent with contemporary principles of justice and equity. They
believed that the Act aligned with Quranic injunctions and aimed to prevent
Muslim women from being left destitute after divorce.

Secularism: The respondent claimed that the Act did not infringe upon the
principles of secularism in the Indian Constitution, as its intent was to protect
the fundamental rights of Muslim women. They also argued that the Act did
not discriminate against Muslim men since they were still required to provide
maintenance to their divorced wives in accordance with Quranic principles.

H. JUDGMENT RATIO DECIDENDI– OBITER DICTA

Bench: Y. C. Chandrachud (CJ), RangathMisra, D. A. Desai, O. Chinnappa

Reddy, E. S. Venkataramiah (JJ)

Date of Judgment: 23 April 1985

 The verdict was given by C.J, Y.C Chandrachud, and the appeal of Mohd.
Ahmed Khan was dismissed.
 Supreme Court said Section of the code applies to all citizens independent of
their religion and consequently Section 125(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure
is pertinent to Muslims as well, without any sort of discrimination.

 The court further stated that Section 125 overrides the personal law if there is
any conflict between the two It makes clear that there’s no strife between the
provisions of Section 125 and those of the Muslim Personal Law on the
address of the Muslim husband’s obligation to provide maintenance for a
divorced wife who is incapable to maintain herself.

 Supreme Court in this case duly held that since the obligation of Muslim
husband towards her divorced wife is restricted to the degree of ”Iddat” period,
indeed though this circumstance does not contemplate the rule of law that’s
said in Section 125 of CrPc., 1973.

 Subsequently the obligation of the husband to pay maintenance to the wife

extends beyond the iddat period in the event that the wife does not have
sufficient means to maintain herself. It was further stated by the court that this
rule according to Muslim Law was against humanity or was wrong because
here a divorced wife was not in a condition to maintain herself.

 The payment of Mehar by the husband on divorce is not sufficient to exempt

him from the duty to pay maintenance to the wife.

 After a long court procedure, the Supreme Court finally concluded that the
husbands’ legal liability will come to an end if a divorced wife is competent to
maintain herself. But this situation will be switched in the case when the wife
isn’t able in a condition to maintain herself after the Iddat period, she will be
entitled to get maintenance or alimony under Section 125 of CrPC.

RATIO DECIDENDI

 With respect to the application of Section 125 of the Code, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that it is applicable to all women irrespective of their
religion. While dealing with the question of whether there is any conflict
between Section 125 of the Code and the Muslim Personal Law, the court held
 that Section 125 is a part of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and not of any
personal law.
 This means every spouse irrespective of their religion is under an obligation to
pay maintenance to his wife until she remarries.
 Further, it was held that mahr or dower is an amount payable to the Muslim
wife as a consideration for marriage and not after divorce. If a Muslim
husband has paid the dower or mahr completely then it will not satisfy his duty
of paying maintenance to his wife after divorce. Mahr or dower is a mark of
respect for a wife under Muslim personal law and cannot be considered as an
amount payable on divorce. Thus, the petitioner was asked to pay maintenance
to his wife till she remarries.

I. SUBSEQUENT LEGAL EFFECTS

 C.J. Chandrachud while giving judgment stated the need to implement the
Article 44 of the Directive Principles in the Constitution, which directs the
state to provide for its citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory
of India.
 He said “A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by
removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies. A
beginning has to be made if the Constitution is to have any meaning.” This
simulated the debate on the Uniform Civil Code in India.
 Shah Bano’s case judgment was criticized by many Muslims especially
Muslim scholars. They considered this decision in conflict with the rules of
the Quran and Islamic Laws/ Islam.
 Subsequently, the Parliament of India in 1986 decided to enact the Muslim
Women (Protection Of Rights Of Divorce) Act, 1986. Protecting the rights of
the divorced Muslim Women and or those who have got divorced from their
husbands, were the main objective of this act. Under this act:
i) Muslim divorced women ought to be entitled to an adequate and
reasonable sum of maintenance till the Iddat period.

ii) When a divorced woman keeps up a child born by her anytime,

sometime recently or after the divorce, the spouse is under a legal
 obligation to supply a certain whole of maintenance for the child
to a period of 2 yrs.

iii) From the birth date of a child. The women are also authorized to get
“Mehar” or “dower” and get back all the properties or estate which is
given to her by her guardians, companions, relatives, husband, or
husband’s friends.

*******