The Patna High Court held that a Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code even after divorce if her husband has not made a “reasonable and fair provision” for her future during the iddat period. In a case in which the Family Court had directed a Muslim husband to pay ₹7,000 per month as maintenance, the husband contested on the basis that their marriage had ended by mutual consent (mubarat) and that he had already discharged his obligations through payment of alimony, den mohar, and iddat expenses.
The wife alleged that soon after marriage she suffered cruelty, which forced her to return to her parents’ house. She claimed that she had no income, while her husband was working abroad with a monthly income of about ₹1 lakh. The husband disputed the allegations of cruelty and claimed that since the marriage had ended in 2013 by mutual divorce, he owed no further maintenance. He submitted that he had already paid Rs. 1,00,000 toward alimony, den mohar, and iddat expenses.
The Family Court rejected the husband’s contentions and granted maintenance to the wife. On revision, the Patna High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision. The High Court emphasized that claims of mutual divorce must be properly proved, noting that no decree from a competent Court had been produced to demonstrate that the marriage was in fact dissolved. The Court observed that disputed questions of fact concerning the marital status cannot be resolved in a Section 125 CrPC proceeding, which is summary in nature.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the husband had divorced the wife, the Court held that she would still be entitled to maintenance as a divorced wife because the husband had neither shown that she remarried nor that he had made reasonable and fair provision for her future during the iddat period. The Court underlined that maintenance under Section 125 is not negated by personal law in the case of Muslim women. Citing precedents such as Shah Bano and Danial Latifi, the Court reiterated that Section 125 CrPC is secular in nature and applies to all, regardless of religion, and is not in conflict with any personal law.
The Court defined “reasonable and fair provision” to include the wife’s needs for residence, food, clothing, and other basic articles. Since no such provision was proved to have been made by the husband, the Court found no error in the Family Court’s order directing maintenance of ₹7,000 per month, and dismissed the husband’s revision petition.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.