In Danial Latifi vs. Union of India case, the Court declared that the husband’s liability does not end with the expiration of Iddat, but that in cases of vagrancy and destitution of the wife, the husband must maintain her and make reasonable and fair provisions for her even beyond the customary period.
BENCH: Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Justice D.P. Mohapatra, Justice Doraiswamy Raju, Justice Shivraj V. Patil.
FACTS OF DANIAL LATIFI 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?
CONTENTIONS:
- The petitioner claimed that Section 125 of the CrPC was framed to address a situation in which a divorced wife was likely to benefit from the divorce, considering Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with protecting life and personal liberty.
- If the remedies under section 125 are applied in the case of divorced Muslim women, it will violate Articles 14, 15, and 21.
- It would be against the secular character of the Constitution if section 125 of the CrPC were not applied in relation to deprived Muslim women.
- The challenge raised in this petition, according to the Solicitor General, was outside personal law.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Justice S. Rajendra Babu: While upholding the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the bench observed that under Sec 3(1)(a), a Muslim husband is responsible for paying maintenance, which may be extended beyond the Iddat period, as well as making reasonable and fair provisions for his divorced wife’s future.
If a divorced Muslim woman has not remarried and is unable to support herself after the Iddat period, she can file a claim under Section 4 of the act, which states that she should be supported by relatives in proportion to the property she leaves to her relatives after her death.
If her relatives cannot support her, the Magistrate may order the State Wakf Board to pay her support under the Act. The provisions of the Act do not violate Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
DECISION IN DANIAL LATIFI CASE:
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the view that the wording of Section 3 (1), “reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband” was interpreted to mean that the husband must pay maintenance to the wife before the iddat period expires and that if he cannot do so, the wife may recover it as provided in Section 3(3) of the Act.
However, nowhere does it state that reasonable and fair provision and maintenance is limited to the iddat period and not beyond it.
The Court ruled that a husband’s obligation to support and maintain his wife extends for the rest of the divorced wife’s life unless she marries again.
CONCLUSION:
- The Honorable Supreme Court rendered a balanced verdict in this case by interpreting the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 in a manner that saved it from being struck down as unconstitutional and without compromising personal law or individual rights.
- The Court declared that the husband’s liability does not end with the expiration of Iddat, but that in cases of vagrancy and destitution of the wife, the husband must maintain her and make reasonable and fair provisions for her even beyond the customary period.
- Not only did the Court appear progressive in determining women’s rights, but it also avoided interfering with the Muslim community’s personal laws.
- While many disagree with the verdict given in this case, as far a maintenance dispute is concerned involving Muslim personal law, the rule in Danial Latifi v. Union of India case is followed.
Found Danial Latifi vs. Union of India Case case summary useful? We have a bunch of useful topics from family law that will help you in your preparation here >>> FAMILY LAW
Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT
