The Kerala High Court has set aside an order, which had declined maintenance to a divorced Muslim woman under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that receipt of amounts under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (the “Act”), does not, by itself, bar a claim for maintenance. The Court held that the Family Court is duty-bound to examine whether the amount paid as matah and maintenance during the iddat period is adequate to enable the woman to maintain herself.
The case arose from a marriage solemnised on January 31, 2010, which ended in divorce on July 3, 2010. On the same day, the parties entered into an agreement under which the husband paid ₹1,00,000 as matah and ₹35,000 towards maintenance during the iddat period, with a stipulation that the wife would not claim future maintenance. Subsequently, the wife and minor daughter filed a petition before the Family Court seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. While the Family Court rejected the wife’s claim on the ground that the husband had discharged his obligations under personal law, it awarded ₹750 per month to the minor child.
Justice Kauser Edappagath examined the legal position governing the maintenance rights of divorced Muslim women. The Court held that the mere execution of a post-divorce agreement or payment under Section 3 of the 1986 Act does not automatically extinguish the right to invoke Section 125 of the CrPC. Relying on decisions of the Supreme Court, including Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan AIR 2010 SC 305, Danial Latifi v. Union of India 2001) 7 SCC 740, and Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana AIR 2024 SC 3665, the Court reiterated that the right to maintenance under CrPC continues unless the husband establishes that the amount paid is sufficient to maintain the woman for her future needs.
The Court found that the Family Court had failed to examine whether the ₹1,00,000 fixed as matah was a reasonable and fair provision, especially considering that the petitioner was only 17 years old at the time of divorce. It was observed that while maintenance during the iddat period worked out to approximately ₹15,000 per month, the amount fixed for the remainder of her life was disproportionately low. The Court also held that the maintenance awarded to the minor child was inadequate.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Family Court was directed to reassess the wife’s claim for maintenance and re-determine the quantum payable to the minor child in accordance with the law, after allowing both parties to adduce further evidence. The Court directed that the matter be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Appearance:
For Petitioner: Advocate G.Sreekumar, along with K.Ravi
For Respondent: Advocate C.M.Kammappu
