The Supreme Court has appointed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave as amicus curiae (pro bono) to assist in determining whether a Family Court can grant permanent alimony to a Muslim woman following the dissolution of her marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, and whether such alimony can be modified if she remarries. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed the order, citing the significance of the legal issues involved.
The case stems from an appeal filed by a man challenging the Gujarat High Court’s March 19, 2020 order, which upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant a divorce decree to a Muslim woman along with a lump sum lifetime maintenance of Rs.10,00,000. In a previous hearing on February 17, the bench directed the parties to submit the 2024 judgment in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, which affirmed that Muslim women are entitled to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The Family Court’s ruling relied on the landmark Danial Latifi & Anr v. Union of India (2001) case, in which the Supreme Court held that a Muslim husband must make reasonable and fair provisions for the future of his divorced wife, including maintenance. The Court also ruled that such provisions, extending beyond the iddat period, must be arranged within the iddat period in accordance with Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. This case upheld the constitutionality of the 1986 Act.
Under the 1986 Act, a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision during the iddat period. Additionally, if she does not remarry and is unable to support herself after the iddat period, she can claim maintenance.
The Gujarat High Court upheld the Family Court's decision after thoroughly examining the status of Muslim women, relevant legal precedents, and applicable laws. It declined to modify the Family Court's order despite being informed that the Muslim woman had remarried.
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice JB Pardiwala (now a Supreme Court judge) and Justice Vireshkumar Mayani upheld the Family Court’s ruling, outlining key conclusions. It stated that before the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, Muslim women had no legal right to seek divorce; however, the Act granted them a statutory right to obtain one. A divorce obtained under this Act is legally valid under Muslim law, entitling the woman to reasonable and fair provision under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Court emphasized that the Family Courts Act, 1984, applies to all communities, including Muslims, and disputes under Section 3 of the 1986 Act fall within its jurisdiction. It further held that maintenance and matrimonial property rights arise as consequences of marriage or divorce, making permanent alimony an integral part of the divorce decree. The Court clarified that while maintenance payments cease upon remarriage, a one-time lump sum alimony granted under Section 3(1)(a) of the 1986 Act is final and cannot be modified upon the wife’s remarriage.
Challenging this decision, the ex-husband filed an appeal before the Gujarat High Court. The matter is now scheduled for hearing on April 15 at 2 PM.
info@adhwaitha.com
