|
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS ON MUSLIM LAW |
|
|
|
|
|
RIGHTS OF MUSLIM WOMEN IN MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE |
|
|
CASE NAME |
HELD |
|
1. Abdul Kadir v. Salima (1886) ILR 8 All. 149 |
Justice Mahmood clarified that dower (mahr) is an essential aspect of a Muslim marriage contract, not a price paid for the marriage. He stated that a wife is entitled to dower even if no amount is explicitly fixed in the marriage contract, as it is a right conferred by law as a consequence of the marriage itself. |
|
2. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1 |
The Supreme Court of India declared the practice of instant triple talaq unconstitutional by a 3:2 majority, holding that it was "manifestly arbitrary" and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The Court found that the practice, which allowed Muslim men to instantaneously and irrevocably dissolve a marriage by uttering "talaq" three times, infringed upon the fundamental rights of Muslim women. |
|
3. Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain, AIR 1979 SC 362 |
The Supreme Court of India ruled that a divorced Muslim wife is entitled to maintenance under the secular provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), regardless of whether she has already received payment under Muslim personal law. |
|
4. Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945 |
The Supreme Court affirmed that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is a secular law applicable to all citizens, including divorced Muslim women, who are entitled to maintenance from their former husbands if unable to support themselves, even after the iddat period. |
|
5. Danial Latifi and others v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740 |
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. It ruled that a Muslim husband's obligation to maintain his divorced wife extends beyond the iddat period and can last for her entire life unless she remarries. The Act's provision for a reasonable future provision for the divorced wife, even beyond iddat, was deemed constitutional. |
|
The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance from her former husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) beyond the iddat period, as long as she does not remarry. |
|
|
|
|
|
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN |
|
|
MARRIAGE AND CONSENT |
|
|
The Supreme Court of India ruled that a child born from an irregular marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman is considered legitimate and has the right to inherit their father's property. This decision affirms that under Muslim law (specifically, Hanafi jurisprudence), such a union is an fasid (irregular) marriage, not a batil (void) one. |
|
|
8. Shaikh Taslim Shaikh Hakim vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another, 2022 |
The Bombay High Court ruled that a family court can legally dissolve the marriage of a Muslim couple by mutual consent under Muslim Personal Law. The court made this observation while quashing criminal proceedings against the husband after the couple reached an amicable settlement. |
|
9. Md. Sonu @ Sonu v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2022 |
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that under Muslim Personal Law, a person is presumed to attain puberty at age 15, and upon reaching this age, they have the right to marry whomever they choose without guardian interference, even if their marriage is considered an offense under other laws. |
|
10. Javed v. State of Haryana and Others, 2022 |
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted protection to a 16-year-old Muslim girl and her husband who were married under Muslim Personal Law. The court relied on the argument that a Muslim girl who has attained puberty, presumed to be at 15, is competent to marry a person of her choice. It also said such a marriage would not be void under Section 12 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006. |
