Why in the News?

The upcoming Bollywood film revisits the historic Shah Bano case (1985), one of India’s most politically charged legal battles.

Recalling the landmark Shah Bano Case

Background of the Case:

Origin: In 1978, Shah Bano Begum, a 62-year-old Muslim woman from Indore, was divorced by her husband, Mohammad Ahmad Khan, a lawyer, via triple talaq after 43 years of marriage.
Legal Action: She filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC (1973), a secular law ensuring financial support for dependents unable to maintain themselves.
Husband’s Argument: Claimed that under Muslim personal law, his obligation ended after the iddat period (~3 months) and that payment of mahr (dower) fulfilled his duty.
Lower Court Ruling: Ordered payment of ₹25/month; the Madhya Pradesh High Court raised it to ₹179.20. Khan appealed to the Supreme Court, triggering the landmark 1985 judgment.

Bench & Ruling: A five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI Y.V. Chandrachud dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision.
Secular Applicability: Held that Section 125 CrPC applies to all religions, as its purpose is to prevent destitution, not to regulate personal law.
Maintenance Beyond Iddat: Affirmed that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period if she cannot sustain herself.
Religious Harmony: Cited Quranic verses to show consistency between Islamic principles and maintenance under secular law.
Uniform Civil Code (UCC): Expressed concern that Article 44 remained a “dead letter,” urging steps toward a common civil code.

Enactment: Passed after protests from Muslim organisations and AIMPLB, reversing the Shah Bano ruling.
Key Provision: Limited husband’s liability to maintenance during iddat, shifting later responsibility to relatives or Waqf Boards.
Judicial Interpretation:
- Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) – Upheld the Act but read it progressively, requiring lump-sum payment within iddat for lifetime support.
- Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (2024) – Reaffirmed that Muslim women may still claim relief under Section 125 CrPC, preserving the choice of remedy.

Landmark Impact: Became a watershed case in India’s struggle between gender justice and religious identity.
Political Consequence: The 1986 Act was seen as appeasement politics, deepening the secularism debates.
Reform Catalyst: Revived the UCC discourse, influenced feminist legal reform, and reinforced constitutional morality.
Enduring Symbol: Continues to shape discussions on minority rights, women’s empowerment, and judicial activism in India’s plural legal framework.

[UPSC 2020] Customs and traditions suppress reason, leading to obscurantism. Do you agree?