For Muslim women, it's a complex route to gender equality

The landmark Supreme Court decision in Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr. has once again brought into focus the rights of divorced Muslim women to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

This pivotal ruling underscores the intersection of personal laws, Constitutional guarantees of equality, and the evolving judicial interpretation of these principles in India, particularly in addressing gender equality and non-discrimination under Indian law.

Shah Bano case

In the wake of the Shah Bano Begum case, a pivotal legal episode in Indian jurisprudence, the plight of Muslim women seeking alimony post-divorce emerged prominently. Shah Bano Begum found herself divorced after a lengthy 42-year marriage, at the age of 62, having dedicated the majority of her life to family and marital duties, leaving her unable to sustain herself financially.

She turned to the judiciary, seeking alimony. The Supreme Court's initial verdict was a ray of hope, potentially setting a precedent to protect countless other Muslim women from similar fates. However, this optimism was short-lived.

The Muslim community expressed significant apprehension, prompting the then Rajiv Gandhi government to enact the Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, effectively overturning the Supreme Court's decision.

Shariah law

This legislative action, while ostensibly aimed at upholding Shariah principles, was widely seen as a political maneuver to appease Muslim voters, thereby reinforcing the perception of religious appeasement in governance.

Under Shariah law, divorced women are entitled to maintenance only during the iddah (waiting period after divorce or widowhood), after which financial responsibility theoretically shifts to family heirs or, if necessary, to the state Waqf Board.

This arrangement, though ostensibly sound, often translates into protracted legal battles for sustenance that disregard considerations of health, age, and living conditions, potentially lasting until the woman's death.

Such a system starkly contrasts with principles of gender equality upheld in other communities, where provisions like CrPC 125 offer more straightforward avenues for seeking post-divorce maintenance.

Constitutional imperatives

Recent judicial developments, notably the July 10, 2024 judgment affirming the applicability of Section 125 of the CrPC across all religious denominations, underscore the broader constitutional imperative of uniformity and non-discrimination.

In the Indian secular context, laws are meant to be universally applicable, irrespective of caste, creed, or gender, yet the exception granted to Muslim personal law perpetuates systemic inequities against Muslim women.

Critics argue that the 1986 Act effectively denies Muslim women the broader protections available under secular laws, relegating them to a secondary legal status incompatible with principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution.

The judiciary's role in balancing religious freedoms with constitutional rights remains contentious, especially in cases where religious laws appear to conflict with broader legal frameworks.

Mahr and alimony

Notably, the issue of alimony, underscored by cases such as Daniel Latiff vs Union of India (2001), has sparked intense legal debate over whether Shariah provisions adequately address modern realities of financial support following divorce.

The disparity between the monetary value of mahr (dower) traditionally stipulated in Islamic marriages and the practical implications for post-divorce financial security further complicates the debate, highlighting fundamental flaws in arguments against additional alimony.

Recent court rulings, including those involving Mohammad Abdul Samad challenging a 2017 order, have affirmed Muslim women's rights to claim alimony beyond the iddah period under CrPC 125, challenging previous interpretations that restricted such claims to either Shariah or civil law provisions.

The evolving legal landscape reflects a growing recognition of the need to reconcile religious practices with constitutional imperatives, ensuring equitable outcomes for all Indian citizens, regardless of religious affiliation.

Let us examine another pertinent consideration.

Matter of meagre mahr

Typically, legislative enactments come at the expense of a nation's cultural ethos; however, in this instance, the dynamic is reversed.

Sharia laws bear resemblance to those observed in Arab nations, particularly concerning the mahr granted to women. This dower is often substantial, intended to sustain a woman throughout her lifetime. Consequently, upon dissolution of the marital bond, there exists no necessity for supplementary maintenance beyond this significant provision.

This contrasts starkly with the situation in India, where the financial sum allocated as mahr is often meagre. Such circumstances underscore fundamental deficiencies in the argument that mahr obviates the need for alimony.

Furthermore, despite the Muslim personal law delineating the concept of mahr, it does not explicitly define compensation. Judicial emphasis on CrPC 125 is likely to encounter resistance from women themselves. This arises from their critique of a public perception shaped in the absence of a precise definition of mahr, and a clear focus on the distinctions between alimony and compensation.

Right to alimony

In a case from 2017, Mohammad Abdul Samad was directed by the court to provide ₹20,000 as alimony to his former wife. The petitioner contested the application of CrPC 125, asserting that alimony had been settled during the iddah period.

The court ruled that Muslim women retain the right to claim alimony even after the completion of iddah. However, a previous judicial pronouncement had stipulated that alimony could only be pursued under one statute.

It was also held that a person compensated under the 1986 Act cannot simultaneously seek maintenance under CrPC 125. Notwithstanding, the court incorporated recommendations from the amicus curiae in its July 10 judgment. The amicus curiae had contended that if compensation received under the 1986 Act was inadequate, a claim under CrPC 125 could be entertained. It was unequivocally stated that the rights conferred by one statute cannot be abrogated merely by resorting to another.

Not charity

Additionally, the court affirmed that the entitlement to alimony should not be misconstrued as an act of benevolence. Pursuant to the 1986 Act, no claim beyond that made during the iddah period can be entertained. Moreover, it was underscored that compensation or alimony must be commensurate with the financial capacity of the obligor.

Moreover, the judgment underscored that alimony rights should not be perceived as charity but as a rightful entitlement crucial for the socio-economic empowerment of women post-divorce.

It further clarified that women could seek relief under CrPC Section 125 even if they had received compensation under the 1986 Act, thereby reinforcing their legal standing to claim adequate support commensurate with the financial capacity of their former spouses.

Financial empowerment

The Court has brought attention to the vulnerability experienced by married women in India, particularly homemakers who lack an independent income and consequently encounter challenges in their daily lives due to limited access to financial resources within their marital households.

In addressing this issue, the court has urged Indian married men to conscientiously recognise this reality and empower their wives financially by providing necessary resources, especially to meet their personal needs.

A significant number of married men in India are unaware of the difficulties faced by homemakers in such circumstances, where requests for financial support may be summarily denied by the husband or his family.

The Court has underscored that some husbands fail to realise that a wife without independent financial means depends on them not only emotionally but also financially.

Gender justice

While these legal developments represent significant strides toward gender justice, societal attitudes and entrenched cultural norms continue to pose formidable challenges to the full realisation of women's rights, including economic empowerment and legal autonomy.

Education and advocacy efforts remain crucial in shifting public perceptions and fostering a more inclusive legal framework that respects and protects the rights of all individuals, irrespective of gender or religious identity.

Expanding on the complexities and challenges faced by Muslim women navigating divorce and alimony issues underscores the broader societal implications of legal interpretations and cultural practices. Beyond legal frameworks, societal attitudes and educational initiatives play pivotal roles in shaping a more inclusive and equitable environment for all individuals, irrespective of gender or religious identity.

The discourse surrounding the intersection of religious freedoms and constitutional rights continues to evolve, prompting critical reflections on the balance between preserving cultural traditions and upholding principles of gender equality. Advocacy efforts aimed at raising awareness and fostering dialogue are essential in challenging entrenched norms and advancing towards a more just and inclusive society.

Broader perspective

The evolution of legal principles governing maintenance rights for Muslim women reflects a broader commitment to gender justice and constitutional values in India.

The judiciary's role in upholding these principles is paramount in fostering a society where all individuals, irrespective of religious affiliation, enjoy equal rights and opportunities.

As we navigate these complex legal landscapes, it is imperative for stakeholders, including policymakers, legal practitioners, and civil society, to collaborate in fostering an environment where every woman can assert her rights with dignity and equality under the law.

In conclusion, the journey towards ensuring equitable treatment for Muslim women in matters of divorce and alimony is fraught with complexities rooted in legal interpretations, cultural traditions, and political considerations. As legal precedents evolve, so too must societal attitudes and legislative frameworks to foster a more just and inclusive society for all Indians.

(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not reflect the views of The Federal.)