Quick answer
Yes. In Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (decided 23 April 1985), a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (old law) is secular and applies to all communities. A divorced Muslim woman who has not remarried and cannot maintain herself can claim maintenance from her former husband under it even after the iddat period (the waiting period after divorce) ends. In 2024 the Supreme Court confirmed that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 does not take this remedy away. The same remedy is now found in Section 144 B.N.S.S.
The case
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945, Supreme Court of India, 23 April 1985. Bench: Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J., D.A. Desai, O. Chinnappa Reddy, E.S. Venkataramiah and Ranganath Misra, JJ.; judgment by Chandrachud, C.J. Shah Bano's husband divorced her and argued that under Muslim personal law he had to maintain her only during iddat, and that he had paid the mahr (dower). The Magistrate awarded Rs. 25 a month, which the High Court raised to Rs. 179.20. The Supreme Court dismissed the husband's appeal with costs.
What the Court held
- Section 125 is secular: it applies to all persons irrespective of religion, and if it ever conflicted with personal law, Section 125 would prevail.
- "Wife" includes a divorced wife: a divorced woman who has not remarried is a "wife" for Section 125.
- No conflict on the facts: personal law limits the husband's duty to iddat only where the divorced wife can support herself. If she cannot, she may use Section 125.
- Mahr does not end the duty: mahr is not a sum payable "on divorce", so paying it does not cancel a Section 125 order under Section 127(3)(b) of the old Code.
- Uniform civil code: the Court observed that Article 44 had remained a dead letter.
What happened next
| Step | Year | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act | 1986 | Passed after Shah Bano to set out the rights of divorced Muslim women |
| Danial Latifi v. Union of India (five judges) | 2001 | Upheld the 1986 Act but read it so that the husband must make a reasonable and fair provision for the wife's future, made within iddat but not limited to it |
| Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana | 2024 | Held that the 1986 Act does not take away the Section 125 remedy; both remedies exist side by side, though Section 127(3)(b) of the old Code prevents a double benefit |
Example
Armaan divorces Renu and pays her mahr. Renu has not remarried and has no income, while Armaan earns well. Renu can apply to a Magistrate of the first class for a monthly allowance under Section 144 B.N.S.S. Armaan cannot defeat the claim by pointing to the end of iddat or to the mahr already paid.
Current law
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been replaced. The general maintenance provision is now Section 144 B.N.S.S. ("Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents"). Its Explanation still defines "wife" to include a woman divorced by, or who has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. The 2024 Abdul Samad ruling was decided under the old Section 125. For maintenance rules under personal law, see Maintenance Under Muslim Law.
Exam point
Shah Bano (1985): the criminal-code maintenance remedy (old Section 125, now Section 144 B.N.S.S.) is secular, and a divorced Muslim woman unable to maintain herself can claim it beyond iddat; Danial Latifi (2001) and Abdul Samad (2024) keep this protection alive.
