Case title: Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) 1614/2024
Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih

Facts:

• The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal by Mohd Abdul Samad, who was told to pay Rs. 20,000 per month as maintenance; Rs. 10,000 by the High Court.
• Wife had moved to family court under Section 125 of CrPC, saying Samad had given triple talaq.
• Samad argued that the provision of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a special act, would prevail over Section 125 of CrPC, a general act.
• Justice Nagarthana stated that Parliament's intent in enacting the 1986 law was to enhance the rights of divorced Muslim women, in addition to entitlements under Section 125 of CrPC.
• Under the 1986 law, divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance during the iddat period (3 months).
• Under Section 125 of CrPC, a divorced woman is entitled to maintenance until she remarries, and children are entitled until they turn 18.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that a Muslim woman who has been illegally divorced by triple talaq is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband.

In a landmark verdict SC said women irrespective of their faith, were entitled to lead maintenance under Section 125 of Crpc and rejected the argument that Muslim women. [ Protection of Rights on Divorce ] Act 1986 , or personal laws of different communities barred them from taking advantage of maintenance under secular law . It was on the Muslim women to decide which of the two laws or both she should recourse to.

This right is in addition to the remedy provided under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019, which specifies that a woman, who has been subjected to triple talaq, will be entitled to claim subsistence allowance from her husband.

It may be noted the 2019 Act criminalized the practice of triple talaq which was declared as void by the Supreme Court in 2017.

When divorce is void and illegal, such a Muslim woman can also seek remedy under Section 125 of the CrPC," Justice Nagaratna stated.

The provisions of the 2019 Act provide remedy in addition to and not in derogation of Section 125 of the CrPC.

The Court also held that Muslim women, who got married under the Special Marriage Act 1954, are also entitled to invoke Section 125 CrPC.

In case a woman has been divorced in a valid manner, she can approach the Magistrate under the 1986 Act but if she has been the victim of the mischief defined under the 2019 Act, then her right to subsistence allowance is secured through Section 5 of the 2019 Act. The intent of the Parliament is clear: it seeks to provide adequate remedies to women from economic deprivation that may result from marital discord, irrespective of their status as a married or divorced woman.

Therefore, prior to a divorce in accordance with law, a married woman has access to maintenance under the general law, i.e., Section 125 of the CrPC and under a special law, i.e., 2019 Act. When divorce is void and illegal, such a Muslim woman can also seek remedy under Section 125 of the CrPC."

Justice Nagarthana said financial security as well as security of residence of Indian women need to be protected and enhanced for their true empowerment. That truly empowered such Indian women who are referred as home makers and who are the strength and backbone of an Indian family .

"It is these moral and ethical values which are inherited by a succeeding generation which would go in a long way in building a strong Indian society. It is to observe that a strong family and society would ultimately lead to a stronger nation . But , for that to happen women in the family have to be respected and empowered ! " ,

The emphasis is on sufficient maintenance, not minimal amount. After all, maintenance is a facet of gender parity and enabler of equality , not charity . It follows that a destitute Muslim woman's right to seek maintenance under Section 125 of Crpc despite tha enactment of the 1986 Act , she said .

The conclusions emerging from the concurring judgments of the judges are as follows:

1. Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all married women including Muslim married women.
2. Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women.
3. Insofar as divorced Muslim women are concerned:
   1. Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all such Muslim women, married and divorced under the Special Marriage Act in addition to remedies available under the Special Marriage Act.
   2. If Section 125 of the CrPC is also resorted to by a divorced Muslim woman, as per the definition under the 1986 Act, then any order passed under the provisions of the 1986 Act shall be taken into consideration under Section 127(3)(b) of the CrPC.
      • [This means that if any maintenance has been given to a Muslim wife under the personal law, then it shall be taken into account by the Magistrate to alter the maintenance order under Section 127(3)(b)]
4. In case of an illegal divorce as per the provisions of the 2019 Act then:
   1. Relief under Section 5 of the said Act could be availed for seeking subsistence allowance or, at the option of such a Muslim woman, remedy under Section 125 of the CrPC could also be availed.
   2. If during the pendency of a petition filed under Section 125 of the CrPC, a Muslim woman is 'divorced' then she can take recourse under Section 125 of the CrPC or file a petition under the 2019 Act.
   3. The provisions of the 2019 Act provide remedy in addition to and not in derogation of Section 125 of the CrPC.