The Kerala High Court examined the scope of a divorced Muslim woman’s right to claim maintenance under the provisions of criminal procedure law even after she has received benefits under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. The case arose from a challenge to an order passed by a Family Court which had rejected the maintenance claim of a divorced Muslim woman while granting a limited amount of maintenance to her minor daughter. The marriage between the parties had been solemnised according to Muslim rites and customs and was dissolved through talaq within a short period. Following the divorce, an agreement was entered into between the former husband and the woman’s father, under which a lump sum amount was paid as matah along with maintenance for the iddat period, and it was recorded that the woman would not claim any further maintenance in the future.
Subsequently, the divorced woman approached the Family Court seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, asserting that the amount she had already received was insufficient for her sustenance. The former husband opposed the claim on the ground that he had already fulfilled his obligations under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act and that the agreement barred any further claim. Accepting this contention, the Family Court dismissed the woman’s application for maintenance, leading her to approach the High Court along with her minor daughter.
While considering the matter, the Kerala High Court held that the Family Court had committed an error in rejecting the maintenance claim solely on the basis that the woman had already received certain benefits under the 1986 Act. The Court clarified that the remedy available to a divorced Muslim woman under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a secular remedy intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy, and its availability is not automatically extinguished by the operation of personal law statutes. The Court emphasized that even after receiving amounts under the Muslim Women Protection Act, a divorced Muslim woman is not completely barred from invoking Section 125 if she is unable to maintain herself.
The High Court reiterated that when such a claim is filed, the Family Court is required to conduct an enquiry into the woman’s present financial condition and her capacity to sustain herself, instead of dismissing the application at the threshold. The focus, according to the Court, must be on whether the claimant continues to be in need of maintenance, rather than on the mere fact that some payment was made earlier under the personal law framework. The Court underlined that Section 125 provides an independent statutory right, and its purpose would be defeated if claims were rejected without examining the factual circumstances of the woman’s livelihood.
The Court also addressed the contention regarding the agreement executed at the time of divorce, which purported to waive future claims for maintenance. It accepted that the agreement had been entered into in accordance with Muslim personal law and that the talaq itself was valid. However, the High Court made it clear that contractual arrangements or personal law settlements cannot override a statutory remedy designed to protect a divorced woman from financial hardship. The existence of such an agreement, therefore, could not be treated as an absolute bar to a claim under Section 125 of the Code.
In light of these observations, the Kerala High Court held that the Family Court ought to have considered the maintenance application on its merits instead of dismissing it outright. The judgment reaffirmed that a divorced Muslim woman’s right to seek maintenance under the criminal procedure law continues to subsist so long as she satisfies the conditions prescribed under the statute. The decision underscored that payments received under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act do not automatically deprive a woman of her right to claim further maintenance if she remains unable to support herself, and that Family Courts must adjudicate such claims after a proper assessment of the relevant facts.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.