Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under CRPC And 1986 Act: Supreme Court(SC)

The Supreme Court of India, on July 10, 2025, stated that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance from her former husband under Section 125 CrPC, together with the remedies provided by the 1986 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act.  The ruling rejects Muslim women's maintenance rights under secular law while acknowledging the gender equality position. 

Background of the Case

• This case arose from a petition by Mohd. Abdul Samad, challenging an order directing him to pay interim maintenance to his divorced wife under Section 125 CrPC. The petitioner contended that since the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was a special law, Section 125 CrPC was excluded with regard to divorced Muslim women.
• The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, dismissed the petition and upheld maintenance under CrPC, holding that both laws are to run harmoniously and do not negate each other.

Key Findings of the Supreme Court

The two-judge bench passing the judgment delivered two separate yet concurring opinions and set down the following principles: 

1. Applicability of Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS

• Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS is a secular provision that applies to all married and divorced women, including Muslims.
• It is not diluted or overpowered by the 1986 Act but acts as an additional remedy.
• Muslim women divorced under Muslim law or Special Marriage Act can resort to remedies both under Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS and the 1986 Act.

2. Choice of Remedy

• A divorced Muslim woman has the option of asking for maintenance either under the 1986 Act or under Section 125 of the CrPC/144 BNSS or both.
• However, the Court made an emphasis that Section 3 of the 1986 Act does not bar relief under CrPC, despite having a non-obstante clause.

3. Harmonious Interpretation

• Justice Masih observed that there are rights under Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS, and also under Section 3 of the 1986 Act which exist in two different domains and can therefore coexist.
• Justice Nagarathna observed that interpreting the 1986 Act to mean that it is a substitute for CrPC would be retrogressive and unconstitutional.

Triple Talaq and Maintenance

The Court held that a Muslim woman, who had been divorced by triple talaq, that being no longer a legal, valid contract, can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSSA. Justice Nagarathna noted that when such a divorce is not valid, the woman continues to have the right to claim maintenance. From this, it is clear that maintenance rights are not extinguished by a void talaq.

Rejection of Petitioner’s Arguments

On behalf of the petitioner, Senior Advocate S Wasim A. Qadri argued that:  

• The CrPC should be superseded by the unique law pertaining to Muslim women.
• It deals with a more comprehensive scheme pertaining to mehr, dower, and fair provision.
• Section 5 of the Act provides a right of opt-out to imply exclusivity. 

The Court rejected these contentions, holding:

• The Act is not a complete code abrogating CrPC.
• Section 5 only applies when proceedings are initiated under the Act, which has not occurred in the present case.
• There is nothing in the said Act which would exclude the application of CrPC unless such exclusion is explicitly stated.  

Submissions by the Amicus Curiae

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, as an amicus curia, supported the maintenance claim of the woman under the CrPC and additionally pointed out: 

• The 1986 Act codifies Muslim personal law and extends the scope of such acts of maintenance beyond the iddat period, but it does not curtail the provision under CrPC.
• Section 7 of the Act is a transitional provision and does not bar new CrPC applications.
• The woman shall not be compelled to choose one remedy or another; both remain available to her.

Constitutional Perspective

The Court's observations stated that refusal to give Muslim women the right to claim maintenance under CrPC would violate Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 15(1) (discrimination) of the Constitution. It thus emphasized the need to apply uniformly secular laws, especially in cases where the personal law is silent or inadequate.  

Observations on Section 127(3)(b) CrPC

• The Court has observed that when a divorced Muslim woman is being maintained under the 1986 Act, a magistrate is bound to consider the maintenance awarded under the Act while passing orders under Section 125 or modifying them under Section 127(3)(b).  

This judgment strengthens the claim of maintenance before the courts by divorced Muslim women under Section 125 CrPC/ Section 144 BNSS and guarantees continuous access to justice for Muslim women by stating that the 1986 Act is not a bar but an additional remedy. The ruling harmonizes secular and personal laws and marks another step toward women’s empowerment and legal uniformity in matters of maintenance and welfare.

Sharks of Law is a one-stop legal resource that houses a wealth of knowledge on various laws as well as recent legal news with the best credentials in the field. You can find a lawyer who satisfies your legal needs with this law firm for online consultation. If you require legal advice in any areas of law, the lawyers at Sharks of Law have the experience to provide it.

Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com

Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993