S.125 CrPC | Muslim Woman Entitled to Maintenance Post-Divorce if ‘Fair Provision’ Not Made: Patna High Court
S.125 CrPC | Muslim Woman Entitled to Maintenance Post-Divorce if ‘Fair Provision’ Not Made: Patna High Court
Author: ABHISHEK J.
The Patna High Court in Md. Murshid Alam v. State of Bihar & Ors., Criminal Revision No. 657 of 2022 (decided on 30 August 2025), has reinforced the principle that a Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) even after divorce, provided her husband has not made a reasonable and fair provision for her sustenance during the iddat period.
The revision petition filed by the husband challenging maintenance awarded by the Family Court, Bhagalpur, was dismissed by Justice Jitendra Kumar, who upheld the monthly allowance of ₹7,000 granted in favor of the wife.
Background of the Case
The parties married in 2010 in accordance with Muslim personal law. Alleging cruelty, the wife left the matrimonial home shortly thereafter and claimed maintenance of ₹15,000 per month on the ground that her husband was employed abroad in a merchant shipping company, earning nearly ₹1,00,000 per month.
The husband contested, asserting that the marital tie had been severed in 2013 by mubarat (mutual divorce) through a compromise in matrimonial proceedings, and that he had already discharged his liability by paying ₹1,00,000 towards den mohar, alimony, and iddat expenses. He denied further obligations and argued that the maintenance petition was misconceived.
The Family Court rejected his plea, holding that there was no legally valid proof of divorce, nor any fair provision for the wife’s future sustenance. The husband sought revision before the Patna High Court.
Issues Considered
- Whether the wife was legally entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC despite the husband’s claim of divorce?
- Whether a lump sum payment of ₹1,00,000 could be treated as fair provision relieving the husband of future liability?
- Extent of High Court’s revisional jurisdiction in interfering with the Family Court’s findings.
Observations of the Court
Justice Jitendra Kumar scrutinized both statutory provisions and judicial precedents. Key findings include:
- On subsistence of marriage: The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC proceedings being summary in nature cannot adjudicate disputed marital status. Since the husband failed to produce any competent decree proving dissolution through mubarat, the marriage was deemed subsisting. Mere filing of a compromise petition without exhibiting it or cross-examination on its genuineness carried negligible evidentiary value.
- On maintenance post-divorce: Even assuming divorce by mubarat, the Court clarified that a Muslim woman retains the right to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless she has remarried, in alignment with the Explanation to Section 125(1) and authoritative rulings in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [(1985) 2 SCC 556] and Danial Latifi v. Union of India [(2001) 7 SCC 740].
- On fair provision: Reiterating Danial Latifi, the Court explained that “reasonable and fair provision” under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 must ensure the divorced wife’s financial security beyond the iddat period. An amount of ₹1,00,000, inclusive of den mohar, was considered inadequate to meet such a standard.
- On scope of revision: Citing State of Kerala v. Puttumana I.J. Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452], Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460], and similar precedents, the Court underscored that revisional interference is limited to correcting glaring errors of law or perversity. No such infirmity was found in the Family Court’s order.
Legal Principles Reiterated
- Section 125 CrPC is secular in nature and overrides personal law considerations when a spouse is left destitute.
- A divorced Muslim woman remains entitled to maintenance unless she remarries, unless the husband has made a fair provision for her future during the iddat period (Danial Latifi, supra).
- Burden lies on the husband to prove valid dissolution and satisfaction of statutory obligations; mere reference to an unadopted compromise does not suffice.
- Quantum of maintenance must balance the wife’s reasonable needs with the husband’s earning capacity, as highlighted in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324].
Decision
Finding no perversity or illegality in the Family Court’s order, the High Court dismissed the revision. The direction requiring the husband to pay his wife ₹7,000 per month was upheld.
Conclusion
This ruling serves as yet another reiteration of the principles flowing from Shah Bano and Danial Latifi, affirming that statutory maintenance provisions under Section 125 CrPC transcend personal law restrictions. It underscores that unless a Muslim husband makes a genuine, fair, and reasonable provision for his divorced wife’s sustenance, his liability under CrPC continues irrespective of claims of mubarat or lump sum settlements.
- Case Title: Md. Murshid Alam v. State of Bihar & Ors.
- Citation: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 657 of 2022 (Patna High Court, decided 30.08.2025)
- Coram: Justice Jitendra Kumar
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocates
- For the State: Mr. Anuj Kumar Srivastava, APP
- For Opposite Party No. 2: Md. Najmul Hodda, Advocate
Comments
Post a Comment