The Shah Bano Case

Source : Indian Express  

Introduction

The 1985 Shah Bano case remains one of India's most politically charged legal battles, sparking nationwide debates on secularism, minority rights, and the Uniform Civil Code. What began as a 62-year-old divorced Muslim woman's plea for maintenance from her husband evolved into a constitutional crisis that exposed deep fault lines in Indian politics. The case not only tested the judiciary's commitment to gender justice but also triggered a political backlash that would reshape India's socio-political landscape for decades to come. 

What Was the Shah Bano Case? 

• In 1978, Shah Bano Begum, a mother of five from Indore, was divorced by her husband Mohammed Ahmad Khan after 43 years of marriage through an irrevocable 'talaq'. Initially, Khan paid her maintenance for a few months before stopping altogether. With no means to support herself, Shah Bano filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973—a secular provision requiring persons with sufficient means to provide maintenance to those they are responsible for, including divorced wives who haven't remarried. 
• Khan contested the petition, arguing that under Muslim personal law, his liability was limited to the iddat period—approximately three months after divorce. He claimed he had already paid maintenance for this period and given her the deferred mahr (dower), fulfilling all obligations under Muslim law. A local court awarded Shah Bano a nominal Rs 25 per month, which the Madhya Pradesh High Court increased to Rs 179.20 monthly. Khan then appealed to the Supreme Court. 

What Did the Supreme Court Rule? 

• On April 23, 1985, a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice YV Chandrachud delivered a unanimous judgment dismissing Khan's appeal. The court held that Section 125 of the CrPC is a secular provision applying to all citizens regardless of religion, enacted to prevent destitution. The bench ruled there was no conflict between Section 125 and Muslim personal law, even referencing the Quran to hold that it imposes an obligation on Muslim husbands to provide for divorced wives. The judgment also expressed regret that Article 44 of the Constitution, advocating for a Uniform Civil Code, remained a "dead letter." 

Why Was a New Law Introduced? 

• The verdict triggered fierce opposition from Muslim groups, particularly the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), who viewed it as an attack on religious identity and an encroachment on Muslim personal law. Large-scale protests erupted across the country. Facing political pressure, the Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress government, despite its substantial parliamentary majority, passed The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, effectively nullifying the judgment. 
• The new law stipulated that divorced Muslim women were entitled to "reasonable and fair provision and maintenance" only during the iddat period. After this period, maintenance responsibility would shift to her relatives who would inherit her property, or if unable, to the state Waqf Board. The same year, amid pressure from Hindu right-wing groups accusing the government of appeasing hardline Muslims, the gates of Babri Masjid in Uttar Pradesh were unlocked—setting in motion events that would culminate in the mosque's demolition in December 1992. 

How Did the Law Evolve After 1986? 

• The constitutional validity of the 1986 Act was immediately challenged, with Danial Latifi—Shah Bano's lawyer—leading the petition.  
• In 2001, a five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the Act but through creative interpretation. The court ruled that the husband's liability wasn't limited to three months; rather, he had to make a one-time payment during iddat sufficient to provide maintenance for her lifetime or until remarriage. This interpretation preserved the Shah Bano verdict's spirit while keeping the 1986 Act intact. 

What Is the Current Legal Position? 

• A degree of ambiguity persisted about whether Muslim women could still seek remedy under Section 125 CrPC.  
• In 2024, in Mohd. Abdul Samad v The State of Telangana, the Supreme Court definitively ruled that the 1986 Act doesn't bar divorced Muslim women from seeking maintenance under Section 125.  
• The court held that the 1986 Act provides a remedy "in addition to and not in derogation of" the CrPC remedy, giving divorced Muslim women the choice to seek relief under either or both laws—empowering them to decide their own legal path forward.