The Supreme Court on Wednesday, July 10, held that a Muslim woman is entitled to file a petition for maintenance against her husband under Section 125 (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih dismissed a petition filed by a Muslim man's plea against the direction to pay interim maintenance to his divorced wife under Section 125 CrPC, according to a report.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, July 10, held that a Muslim woman is entitled to file a petition for maintenance against her husband under Section 125 (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih dismissed a petition filed by a Muslim man - Samad - against the direction to pay interim maintenance to his divorced wife under Section 125 CrPC, according to a LiveLaw report.
The Court held that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 will not prevail over the secular law.
ALSO READ | Whither Gender Justice?
"We are dismissing the criminal appeal with the conclusion that Section 125 CrPC would be applicable to all women and not just married women," Justice Nagarathna was quoted as saying.
The bench said that if during the pendency of a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC a Muslim woman is divorced, she can take recourse to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019.
Alimony meaning: Alimony payments are legally mandated monetary transfers from one ex-spouse to another in order to provide financial support.
The bench had reserved its verdict in the case on February 19 after hearing senior advocate Wasim Qadri for the petitioner. It had appointed advocate Gaurav Agarwal as amicus curiae in the matter to assist the court.
Qadri had submitted that the 1986 Act is more beneficial to Muslim woman as compared to CrPC Section 125 of the , according to news agency PTI.
On December 13, 2023, the high court did not set aside the direction of the family court for payment of interim maintenance by Samad to his estranged wife but reduced the amount from Rs 20,000 to Rs 10,000 per month, to be paid from the date of petition.
Samad contended before the high court that they got divorced in accordance with personal laws in 2017 and there was a divorce certificate to that effect, but it was not considered by the Family Court, which ordered for payment of interim maintenance.
Aggrieved by the high court’s order, Samad approached the top court.