PROFILPELAJAR.COM

Shah Bano case

Mohammed Ahmad Khan (The Union) v. Shah Bano Begum
CourtSupreme Court of India
Full case name Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum And Ors
Decided23 April 1985 (1985-04-23)
Citation1985 (1) SCALE 767; 1985 (3) SCR 844; 1985 (2) SCC 556; AIR 1985 SC 945
Case history
Prior actionCriminal Revision No. 320 of 1979, Madhya Pradesh High Court
Court membership
Judges sittingY. V. Chandrachud (Chief Justice), Rangnath Misra, D A Desai, O Chinnappa Reddy, E S Venkataramiah
Case opinions
A woman has a right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC as the Code is a criminal law and not a civil law.
Decision byY. V. Chandrachud (Chief Justice)
Laws applied
Code of Criminal Procedure (India), Indian Penal Code.

The Shah Bano case was a Mohammad Ahmad Khan versus Shah Bano Begum case (1985).[1] In this contentious maintenance case in India, the Supreme Court ruled in support of paying maintenance to a Muslim woman who had been wrongfully divorced. The most contentious part of the law that the government passed was the right to maintenance during the iddat period following a divorce and the transfer of the maintenance obligation to the woman's family or the Waqf Board. It denied Muslim women their right to basic maintenance under secular law and hence, the law was viewed as discriminatory.[2]

In 1978, Shah Bano Begum, a resident of Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was divorced by her husband.[2] She received the right to alimony from her husband after filing a criminal lawsuit in the Supreme Court of India. Nonetheless, a push to overturn the ruling was launched by a few Muslim MPs. The woman in this case received a favourable ruling, which sparked criticism[3][4][5] among Muslims. Some of them demonstrated in protest, that the ruling was against Islamic law by citing the Qur'an.[4] It sparked debate on the degree to which India's many religions have distinct civil codes.[6][7]

The Congress government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 with an absolute majority, diluting the Supreme Court's ruling and limiting Muslim divorced women's right to alimony from their ex-husbands to ninety days following the divorce (the "iddah]]" period in Islamic law) due to the case.[2][7][5] The Supreme Court of India however, interpreted the act in a way that reassured the validity of the case in later rulings, such as Danial Latifi versus Union of India and Shamima Farooqui vrrsus Shahid Khan. As a result, the Shah Bano ruling was upheld, and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 seemed invalid.[8][2][9][10] The Supreme Court's decision to grant a divorced Muslim woman an absolute right to maintenance was endorsed by some Muslim groups, such as the All India Shia Personal Law Board.[11][12][13]

References

  1. ↑ "Judgement Copy" (PDF). Article 51A. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-07-11. Retrieved 2025-11-20.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 "The Shah Bano legacy". The Hindu. 10 August 2003. Archived from the original on 16 February 2024.
  3. ↑ The politics of autonomy : Indian experiences 2005, p. 60-61.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Inscribing South Asian Muslim women 2008, p. 357.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 On violence: a reader 2007, p. 262-265.
  6. ↑ T.P. Jindal 1995, p. 57.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 "Flashback to Shah Bano case as Muslim woman wins alimony battle". The Indian Express. 23 September 2009. Retrieved 7 May 2013.
  8. ↑ Narain, Vrinda (January 2008). Reclaiming the Nation: Muslim Women and the Law in India. India: University of Toronto Press. pp. 123–124. ISBN 978-0802092786.
  9. ↑ "Right to maintenance of a wife absolute, Section 125 of CrPC applicable on divorced women". Archived from the original on 11 April 2015.
  10. ↑ "SC: Right to maintenance of a wife absolute, Section 125 of CrPC applicable on divorced women". The Times of India. 7 April 2015.
  11. ↑ "Need law to ensure minimum interference in minorities' affairs, says AISPLB". 21 April 2015.
  12. ↑ "Arif Mohammad Khan on Shah Bano case: 'Najma Heptullah was key influence on Rajiv Gandhi'". 30 May 2015.
  13. ↑ "Arif Mohammad Khan welcomes Supreme Court's ruling on Section 125". Archived from the original on 24 April 2015.

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.