Landmark Judgments On Maintenance Rights
✅ What is Maintenance?
Maintenance is a financial support that a person (usually a husband or a child) is legally bound to provide to dependents like wife, children, and parents who cannot maintain themselves. It is governed by both:
Personal laws (Hindu, Muslim, Christian etc.)
Sec 125 CrPC (a secular provision, applicable to all religions)
🔍 Landmark Judgments on Maintenance Rights (Explained)
1. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)
Citation: AIR 1985 SC 945
🧾 Background:
Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, was divorced by her husband after 40+ years of marriage.
She filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Held:
Section 125 CrPC is a secular provision and overrides personal laws.
A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period if she cannot maintain herself.
⚖️ Importance:
First time the Supreme Court enforced maintenance for Muslim women under CrPC, not just under Muslim Personal Law.
Sparked huge national debate leading to Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
2. Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001)
Citation: AIR 2001 SC 3958
🧾 Background:
Challenged the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, passed after Shah Bano judgment.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Held:
Upheld the validity of the Act but interpreted it liberally.
A husband must make a reasonable and fair provision for his divorced wife within the iddat period, but this amount must be enough to maintain her for life.
⚖️ Importance:
Reconciled the Shah Bano ruling with the new Muslim Women Act.
Protected Muslim women’s right to long-term maintenance under secular principles.
3. Vimla (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) (1991)
Citation: AIR 1991 SC 2216
🧾 Background:
Dispute over the definition of “wife” under Section 125 CrPC.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Held:
The term “wife” includes a divorced woman who has not remarried.
Also observed that the provision should be interpreted liberally and in favor of social justice.
⚖️ Importance:
Clarified that divorced women are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC as long as they remain unmarried.
4. Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005)
Citation: AIR 2005 SC 1809
🧾 Background:
A woman sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC claiming she was the wife of the man (they had a customary marriage, but he was already married to someone else).
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Held:
A second wife (when the first marriage is subsisting and not legally dissolved) is not legally entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
⚖️ Importance:
Emphasized the requirement of a valid and legal marriage to claim maintenance under CrPC.
5. Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014)
Citation: (2014) 1 SCC 188
🧾 Background:
Husband hid his first marriage and married another woman. She claimed maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Held:
Even if the second marriage is legally void, the woman is entitled to maintenance if she was unaware of the previous marriage and married in good faith.
⚖️ Importance:
A progressive judgment protecting the rights of women tricked into invalid marriages.
The Court said laws must be interpreted to protect women’s dignity and to prevent exploitation.
6. Rajnesh v. Neha (2020)
Citation: (2021) 2 SCC 324
🧾 Background:
Ongoing disputes over interim and permanent maintenance across multiple courts.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Held:
Issued detailed guidelines for:
Payment of interim and permanent maintenance.
Standardization of documents (income affidavit, tax returns).
Timelines for payment and adjudication.
Directed both parties to file a detailed affidavit of assets and liabilities.
⚖️ Importance:
Set a uniform procedure for maintenance claims across India.
Aimed at reducing delays and manipulation in maintenance disputes.
7. Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar (2015)
Citation: (2015) 11 SCC 467
🧾 Background:
Maintenance claim filed under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Held:
Wife can claim maintenance under HAMA even if she has not filed for divorce.
The obligation to maintain a wife arises as long as she is legally wedded and living separately with just cause.
⚖️ Importance:
Expanded the interpretation of maintenance under personal laws (Hindu law in this case).
🧾 Key Takeaways
| Principle | Case | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Secular maintenance under CrPC | Shah Bano | CrPC overrides personal laws |
| Fair provision under Muslim law | Danial Latifi | Provision for life even if paid during iddat |
| Definition of Wife | Vimla v. Veeraswamy | Includes divorced woman (unremarried) |
| Second wife’s right | Savitaben | No right if marriage is void |
| Good faith second wife | Badshah v. Urmila | Entitled to maintenance if deceived |
| Uniform guidelines | Rajnesh v. Neha | Streamlined process, avoids misuse |
| Hindu law rights | Kamala v. Mohan Kumar | Wife has rights even without divorce |
📌 Conclusion
These landmark judgments collectively:
Strengthen the economic rights of women post-marriage or divorce.
Emphasize that Section 125 CrPC is a welfare legislation, not based on strict personal law technicalities.
Protect even women in invalid or second marriages, under certain conditions.
Bring procedural consistency and enforceability to maintenance cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments