CASE NAME :- Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. The State of Telangana & Anrs. 2024
BENCH:-
JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
In
the current case,
the appellant and respondent were married on November 15, 2012. After a few years, their relationship began
to deteriorate. His wife left the matrimonial home on April 9, 2016. Subsequently, his wife lodged an FIR for a criminal offense
under Sections
498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Appellant
pronounced a triple talaq on September 25, 2019, and This divorce was
eventually granted ex-parte, and the appellant was ordered to pay fifteen
thousand rupees as maintenance for the duration of the iddat period, contrary to which, the Respondent refused to accept the same. Consequently, the
appellant moved to the Telangana High Court seeking to quash the family court’s
order.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
1. Whether the Respondent can claim interim
maintenance under Section 127 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
2. Whether a special law would supersede a general law?
JUDGEMENT
The
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the appellant's criminal appeal is set aside
and also the respondent has claimed the interim maintenance under section 127
of the CrPC.
The
Divisional Bench consisting of Justice BV Nagarathna and Augustine George
Manish has concurrently concluded that-
a)
Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all married women including Muslim married
women.
b)
Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women.
c)
Insofar as divorced Muslim women are concerned, -
i)
Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all such Muslim women, married and divorced
under the Special Marriage Act in addition to remedies available under the
Special Marriage Act.
ii)
If Muslim women are married and divorced under Muslim law then Section 125 of
the CrPC as well as the provisions of the 1986 Act are applicable. Option lies
with the Muslim divorced women to seek remedy under either of the two laws or
both laws. This is because the 1986 Act is not in derogation of Section 125 of
the CrPC but in addition to the said provision.
iii)
If Section 125 of the CrPC is also resorted to by a divorced Muslim woman, as
per the definition under the 1986 Act, then any order passed under the provisions
of 1986 Act shall be taken into consideration under Section 127(3)(b) of the
CrPC.
d)
The 1986 Act could be resorted to by a divorced Muslim woman, as defined under
the said Act, by filing an application thereunder which could be disposed of in
accordance with the said enactment.
e)
In case of an illegal divorce as per the provisions of the 2019 Act then,
i)
relief under Section 5 of the said Act could be availed for seeking subsistence
allowance or, at the option of such a Muslim woman, remedy under Section 125 of
the CrPC could also be availed.
ii)
If during the pendency of a petition filed under Section 125 of the CrPC, a
Muslim woman is ‘divorced’ then she can take recourse under Section 125 of the
CrPC or file a petition under the 2019 Act.
iii) The provisions of the 2019 Act provide remedy in addition to and not in derogation of Section 125 of the CrPC.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the judgment is to provide
sufficient maintenance and promote equality for divorced Muslim women in India.
Therefore, there is no need for a separate application under Section 3 of the
Act of 1986.
CONCLUSION
Lawmakers have kept in mind that Section 125 of the CrPC,1973 provides divorced women with access to speedy justice and prevents vagrancy by compelling their husbands to support their wives. Therefore, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 can neither conflict nor dilute the powers of the CrPC,1973.
SOURCE:-https://scourtapp.nic.in/supremecourt/2024/3533/3533_2024_11_1501_53688_Judgement_10-Jul-2024.pdf