In a landmark 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that divorced Muslim women can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, reinforcing gender justice and clarifying the coexistence of secular and personal laws.

Introduction – A Landmark Judgment in Muslim Women’s Maintenance Rights

On July 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict in the case of Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr. The ruling clarified that divorced Muslim women are entitled to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, in addition to the remedies available under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

Presided over by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih, the decision highlights the importance of gender-neutral, secular laws in preventing destitution and promoting social justice.

Case Background – Facts at a Glance

Timeline of Events

• Marriage Date: November 15, 2012

• Separation: 2016

• Divorce via Talaq: 2017

• Maintenance Claim: Filed under Section 125 CrPC

After the divorce, the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking monthly maintenance. The Family Court awarded ₹20,000 per month, later reduced to ₹10,000 by the Telangana High Court. Dissatisfied, the husband approached the Supreme Court, arguing that only the 1986 Act should apply.

Key Legal Issue

Can a divorced Muslim woman claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC despite the provisions of the 1986 Act?

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Argument (Mohd Abdul Samad)

• Argued that Section 125 CrPC does not apply to divorced Muslim women.

• Claimed that the 1986 Act provides an exclusive remedy, limited to the iddat period.

• Stated that applying CrPC would violate Muslim personal law.

Respondent’s Argument (Wife)

• Emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a secular and gender-neutral social welfare law.

• Cited precedent set in Danial Latifi v. Union of India supporting co-existence of both laws.

• Highlighted her lack of income and inability to sustain herself.

Supreme Court Verdict – Section 125 CrPC Is Applicable

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal and ruled that:

• Section 125 CrPC applies to all individuals regardless of religion.

• The 1986 Act does not override the CrPC.

• Both laws can be used together, depending on the facts.

• The law’s intent is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, not adhere strictly to personal laws.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna further emphasized that maintenance is a legal right, not charity, affirming the economic value of homemakers.

Conclusion – A Win for Gender Justice and Equality

The judgment in Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr affirms that Section 125 CrPC provides protection beyond personal laws. It ensures financial support for divorced Muslim women, reinforcing constitutional principles of equality and dignity.

This progressive decision strengthens the legal framework supporting women’s rights in India, and provides a crucial precedent for interpreting secular and personal laws harmoniously.

Key Takeaways

• Divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC beyond the iddat period.

• The 1986 Act does not exclude the applicability of CrPC.

• This verdict promotes secularism, equality, and gender justice in Indian family law.