Editorial Analysis 12 July

SECURITY

Righting a Wrong

Source: Indian Express

Context

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has recently ruled that divorced Muslim women are entitled to claim maintenance under CrPC to clear up the effect of the law enacted in 1986 and to reestablish the secular provision of maintenance.

Details

Key points:

• Supreme Court Ruling: The CrPC has provisions for the divorced Muslim women to claim maintenance.
• 1986 Act: Thus, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was enacted to counter the Shah Bano case.
• Constitutional Validity: The 1986 Act was declared legal in 2001 but was restricted to allow secular redresses.
• High Court Judgments: Different opinions on whether to use Section 3 of the 1986 Act or Section 125 of CrPC.
• Harmonious Interpretation: The Court also broadened rights and de-sacralised the access to remedies thus obliterating the notion that Muslim women’s rights under the secular provisions were erased.

Historical Context

• Shah Bano Case (1985):
  • An important judgement of the Supreme Court of India in which a divorced Muslim woman, Shah Bano was awarded maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC.
• Public Reaction:
  • The verdict sparked a lot of controversy and hence political influence, thus the formulation of the new law.

Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act 1986

• Purpose: Passed to oppose the Shah Bano decision and restrict a Muslim woman to approach for maintenance under the personal law only.
• Key Provisions:
  • Some of the things that are observed during the Iddat period include the maintenance of the woman during this period.
  • Maintenance of the woman until she can remarry.
  • Return of mehr (dower) and dowry.

Constitutional Validity

• 2001 Supreme Court Ruling: The Act was sustained by interpreting it in a way that permitted Muslim women to approach civil courts for maintenance whilst at the same time preventing any breach of constitutional provisions.

Varied High Court Interpretations

• There were dissimilarities in High Courts’ decisions regarding whether a Muslim woman could seek maintenance under Section 3 of the 1986 Act or Section 125 of the CrPC.

Recent Supreme Court Verdict

• Clarification:
  • The Bench of Justice V. Nagarathna & Justice Augustine George Masih made it clear that:
  • Even the codification that took place in the 1986 Act was an accretion on the right of the applicants to seek maintenance under secular laws.
  • It means that personal law provisions as well as secular remedies for maintenance should be there.
• Implications:
  • Parallel Rights: Therefore, Muslim women have rights in both the personal law and secular law.
  • Secular Remedy: Further strengthened the provisions of the secular remedies under the CrPC.

Social and Legal Implications

• Social Purpose: Engaging in stopping vagrancy and providing assistance for divorced women which is also highlighted by Justice Nagarathna.
• Harmonious Interpretation: This approach of the Court helped in the enlargement of rights and at the same time made sure that secular remedies were provided.

Conclusion

• The judgement by Supreme Court pertaining to the case is a landmark one towards justice and equality for Muslim women and their right to claim maintenance under Personal as well as secular laws. This ruling re-emphasises the need for harmonious interpretation in the protection of the constitutional rights and in ensuring secularism in the legal system of India.

Sources:

Indian Express