Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum

In 1932, Mohd. Ahmed Khan, an advocate from Indore, married Shah Bano. They had three sons and two daughters. In 1975, Ahmed Khan threw Shah Bano, then 62 years old, out of the matrimonial home.

In April 1978, Shah Bano filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, asking for Rs. 500 per month. On 6 November 1978, Ahmed Khan gave her an irrevocable talaq (a talaq that cannot be taken back). He then argued that he had no duty to pay maintenance after the divorce, because under Muslim personal law his duty lasted only until the end of the iddat period (the waiting period after divorce, generally about three months, during which the woman cannot remarry). He also said he had paid her Rs. 200 a month for two years and had deposited Rs. 3,000 as mehr.

The Magistrate awarded Shah Bano only Rs. 25 per month. The Madhya Pradesh High Court raised this to Rs. 179.20 (about Rs. 180) per month. Ahmed Khan appealed to the Supreme Court.

1. Under Muslim personal law, is the husband's obligation to maintain his divorced wife limited only to the iddat period?

2. Does Section 125 CrPC apply to Muslims as well?

3. If Muslim personal law and Section 125 CrPC conflict, which law will prevail?

Ahmed Khan (husband/appellant) argued that after the divorce he was not bound to pay maintenance, because under Muslim personal law the husband's duty lasts only until the end of the iddat period. He pointed out that he had paid Rs. 200 a month for two years and had deposited Rs. 3,000 as mehr.

He also raised a technical argument under Section 127(3)(b) CrPC: if a divorced wife has received the whole amount due to her on divorce under customary or personal law, the maintenance order can be cancelled. He relied on the payment of mehr for this purpose.

Shah Bano (wife/respondent) sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC because she could not maintain herself after being thrown out of her home.

The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and dismissed Ahmed Khan's appeal. The judgment, delivered on 23 April 1985 by a five-judge bench, was written by Chief Justice Y. V. Chandrachud.

1. Secular nature of Section 125: The Court held that Section 125 is a secular provision that applies to everyone, whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Sikh. It is part of criminal procedure, not personal civil law. Its purpose is to give quick relief to a wife, child or parent who cannot maintain themselves, so that they do not become destitute. If the husband has sufficient means and the wife cannot maintain herself, he must pay. The Explanation to Section 125 itself says that 'wife' includes a divorced woman who has not remarried.

2. No real conflict with personal law: If the divorced wife can maintain herself, the husband's duty ends after iddat. But if she cannot maintain herself, she gets the protection of Section 125. So, in truth, there is no conflict between Section 125 and Muslim personal law; each operates in its own circumstances. The Court also referred to certain verses of the Quran and said that Islam too speaks of a reasonable provision for the divorced wife. This part of the reasoning later became the most controversial.

3. Mehr and Section 127(3)(b): Mehr is not an amount paid in exchange for divorce; it is connected with the marriage and given in the wife's honour. So payment of mehr does not free the husband from his duty to pay maintenance.

4. Article 44: The Court regretted that Article 44, which speaks of a Uniform Civil Code, had remained only on paper.

Shah Bano was therefore entitled to maintenance under Section 125, since she could not maintain herself. The husband's religion or personal law does not end this obligation, which continues for as long as the wife cannot support herself, whether or not divorce has taken place.

Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Section 144, B.N.S.S.); Explanation to Section 125 CrPC (divorced wife included in 'wife'); Section 127(3)(b), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Section 146, B.N.S.S.); Article 44, Constitution of India (Uniform Civil Code); Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (passed after the judgment)

The case is a landmark in constitutional history because it placed a secular, protective law above the shield of personal law and strengthened the rights of divorced Muslim women. It triggered a major political and religious debate: there were large-scale protests, the Rajiv Gandhi government later brought in the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, seen as an attempt to limit the judgment, and Union Minister of State Arif Mohammad Khan resigned in protest.

The validity of the 1986 Act was examined in the Danial Latifi case (2001). The Uniform Civil Code debate gained pace from this case; the Supreme Court again stressed Article 44 in Sarla Mudgal (1995). Goa already has a common civil code, and Uttarakhand enacted a Uniform Civil Code law in 2024, in force from January 2025.

On 10 July 2024, in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, the Supreme Court held that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 as well; the 1986 Act gives an additional remedy and does not take away the secular one. So the core idea of Shah Bano is settled law today.

For exams, cover five points: the secular nature of Section 125, the divorced wife covered in the Explanation, Section 127 and mehr, the observation on Article 44, and the 1986 Act. Triple talaq is a separate question (Shayara Bano).

Hypothetical: Farhan divorces his wife Zoya after 30 years of marriage. Zoya has no job or income and is now dependent on others. Farhan says he paid her mehr and supported her during iddat, so his duty is over. Zoya files for maintenance under Section 144 B.N.S.S. (old Section 125 CrPC). Applying the Shah Bano principle, the court would hold that Farhan, who has sufficient means, must continue paying maintenance as long as Zoya cannot support herself and has not remarried; his payment of mehr does not end this duty. If instead Zoya were earning enough to support herself, Farhan's duty would end after iddat.