Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: AIR 1979 SC 362
Judgment Date: October 17, 1978
Bench: Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
Background:
This case revolved around the interpretation of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which deals with the maintenance of a wife, children, and parents. The core issue was whether a divorced Muslim woman who had already received a lump-sum payment (called Mehar) from her husband at the time of divorce could claim further maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Facts:
Bai Tahira, the petitioner, was a divorced Muslim woman. At the time of divorce, she had been paid a lump-sum Mehar and was given some maintenance. However, after a certain period, she was unable to support herself. Therefore, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC, seeking further maintenance from her ex-husband, Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia.
The respondent contended that the payment of Mehar at the time of divorce absolved him from any further liability of maintenance under Muslim law. He argued that since Mehar had already been given, he was not obligated to provide additional support.
Key Legal Issue:
Whether a divorced Muslim woman who had already received Mehar could still claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Also read: Case Summary: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Judgment:
The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, ruled in favor of Bai Tahira, emphasizing that the provisions of Section 125 CrPC have a secular character and are applicable to all women, irrespective of their religion. The Court held that the purpose of Section 125 is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and the law is based on public welfare rather than religious doctrines.
Justice Krishna Iyer observed that the payment of Mehar or a one-time lump sum at the time of divorce does not absolve a husband from his responsibility to provide maintenance if the divorced wife is unable to support herself. The Court ruled that the amount of Mehar received by the wife is not enough to deny her maintenance under Section 125, CrPC.
The Court held that the ex-husband is obligated to maintain his divorced wife if she cannot maintain herself, even if he had already paid the Mehar. The right to maintenance is part of social justice and equity, especially when the divorced wife is left without means of subsistence.
Significance:
This case was significant in reinforcing the secular nature of Section 125 CrPC. The Supreme Court ensured that divorced women, regardless of their religious background, are protected under the law and can claim maintenance if they cannot support themselves. The ruling helped pave the way for future judgments regarding the rights of divorced Muslim women, including the landmark Shah Bano case (1985), which further clarified the application of maintenance laws.
The decision in Bai Tahira also underscored the importance of justice and equity in cases concerning destitution, further solidifying the Court’s stance on social welfare and protection of women.
Link to Judgment:
You can access the full judgment of Bai Tahira vs. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia & Anr here.
This case remains a pivotal moment in India’s legal history, as it highlighted the secular applicability of Section 125 and upheld the rights of women to maintenance, irrespective of their personal laws.
Discover more from Lawfer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
