New Delhi, Apr 2 (UNI) The Supreme Court has recently appointed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave as amicus curiae (pro bono) to assist the Court in determining whether a Family Court can award permanent alimony to a Muslim woman whose marriage has been dissolved under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, and whether such alimony can be modified upon her remarriage.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed the order, citing the importance of the legal issues involved.
The bench was hearing an appeal filed by a man against the Gujarat High Court’s order passed on March 19, 2020, which upheld the Family Court’s decision granting a divorce to a Muslim woman along with a lump sum of Rs. 10,00,000 as permanent lifetime maintenance.
In a previous hearing on February 17, the bench directed the parties to place on record the 2024 judgment in Mohd. Abdul Samad Vs. State of Telangana, which affirmed that Muslim women have the right to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The Family Court’s ruling was based on the precedent set in Danial Latifi & Anr vs Union of India (2001), where the Supreme Court held that a Muslim husband is obligated to make a reasonable and fair provision for his divorced wife’s future, including her maintenance.
The judgment also stated that such provisions must be made within the iddat period under Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
This case upheld the constitutionality of the 1986 Act, which ensures that a Muslim woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair amount during the iddat period and, under certain conditions, post-iddat maintenance if she does not remarry and cannot sustain herself.
The Gujarat High Court upheld the Family Court’s order after an in-depth review of the legal status of Muslim women, relevant precedents, and applicable laws. It refused to modify the order upon receiving information that the woman had remarried.
A High Court bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala (now a Supreme Court judge) and Justice Vireshkumar Mayani outlined the following conclusions that: Before the 1939 Act, Muslim women had no statutory right to seek a divorce if the husband refused. The Act conferred this right, allowing women to approach Civil Courts for a divorce decree.
A divorce obtained under the 1939 Act is legally valid under Muslim law, entitling the woman to reasonable and fair provision under the 1986 Act.
Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, gives it an overriding effect over other laws, making Family Courts applicable to all communities, including Muslims.
Disputes under Section 3 of the 1986 Act fall within the jurisdiction of Family Courts, as they pertain to matrimonial relationships.
Maintenance and rights to matrimonial property are consequences of marriage or its dissolution. The husband has dual obligations: (i) to make a “reasonable and fair provision” for his divorced wife and (ii) to provide “maintenance.” The obligation to provide for her future is not limited to the period before her remarriage. The Family Court has jurisdiction to order a lump sum payment, which cannot be modified upon remarriage.
Permanent alimony is incidental to the decree of judicial separation, divorce, or annulment of marriage.
When a Family Court orders a one-time permanent alimony payment, it is not subject to future refunds or conditions, including remarriage. It serves as an unconditional settlement of the husband’s obligations.
Periodical maintenance payments recognize the husband’s obligation to maintain his divorced wife as long as she remains unmarried.
Upon remarriage, her status as a divorcee ceases, and so does the husband’s liability for maintenance.
Following this ruling, the ex-husband appealed to the Gujarat High Court. The matter is now scheduled for a hearing on April 15 at 2 PM.
