Case Summary
| Citation | Danial Latifi v. Union of India, 2001 |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | The principal question for consideration before this Court was the interpretation of Section 127(3)(b) CrPC that where a Muslim woman had been divorced by her husband and paid her mahr, would it indemnify the husband from his obligation under the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | The court analysed the Shah Bano judgment and the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 in detail and conceded that the Act appears to be, prima facie, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which mandates equality and equal protection of law to all persons and also Article 15 which prohibits discrimination on ground, inter alia, of religion. It, however, observed that the validity or otherwise of a statute would depend on the interpretation of the same and the court decided to interpret it in a manner so as to uphold the validity of the Act on the ground that “the Legislature does not intend to enact unconstitutional laws”. According to the court, section 3 of the Act lays down two separate and distinct obligations on the part of the husband viz, (1) to make a reasonable and fair provision for his divorced wife and (2) to provide maintenance for her. The emphasis is not on the nature of duration of any such “provision” or “maintenance” but on the time by which an arrangement for payment of provision and maintenance should be concluded, namely, “within the iddat period”. Such interpretation, according to the court would have the effect of excluding from liability for post iddat period maintenance by a husband who has already discharged his obligations of both “reasonable and fair provision” and “maintenance” by paying these amounts in a lump sum to his wife in addition to having paid her mahr and restored her dowry as per sections 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(d) of the Act. A Muslim husband is liable to make reasonable and fair provision for the future of the divorced wife which obviously includes her maintenance as well. Such a reasonable and fair provision extending beyond the iddat period must be made by the husband within the iddat period in terms of section 3(1)(a) of the Act. Liability of Muslim husband to his divorced wife arising under section 3(1)(a) of the Act to pay maintenance is not confined to iddat period. A divorced Muslim woman who has not remarried and who is not able to maintain herself after iddat period can proceed as provided under section 4 of the Act against her relatives who are liable to maintain her in proportion to the properties which they inherit on her death according to Muslim Law from such divorced woman, including her children and parents. If any of the relatives being unable to pay maintenance, the magistrate may direct the state Wakf Board established under the Act to pay such maintenance. The provisions of the Act do not offend Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, without striking down the Act as ultra vires, the court has given it a construction which will remove discrimination and hardship caused to divorce Muslim wives. |
| Judgment | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
To do
