Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
| Mohammed Ahmad Khan (The Union) v. Shah Bano Begum | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Full case name | Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum And Ors |
| Decided | 23 April 1985 |
| Citation | 1985 (1) SCALE 767; 1985 (3) SCR 844; 1985 (2) SCC 556; AIR 1985 SC 945 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | Criminal Revision No. 320 of 1979, Madhya Pradesh High Court |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Y. V. Chandrachud (Chief Justice), Rangnath Misra, D A Desai, O Chinnappa Reddy, E S Venkataramiah |
| Case opinions | |
| A woman has a right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC as the Code is a criminal law and not a civil law. | |
| Decision by | Y. V. Chandrachud (Chief Justice) |
| Laws applied | |
| Code of Criminal Procedure (India), Indian Penal Code. | |
Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [1985], commonly referred to as the Shah Bano case, was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in India, in which the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in favour of providing maintenance to an aggrieved divorced Muslim woman. Then the Congress government enacted a law, with its most controversial aspect being the right to maintenance during period of iddat after the divorce, and shifting the responsibility of maintaining woman to her relatives or the Waqf Board. It was seen as discriminatory as it denied right to basic maintenance available to Muslim women under secular law.
Shah Bano Begum, from Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was divorced by her husband in 1978. She filed a criminal suit in the Supreme Court of India, in which she won the right to alimony from her husband. However, some Muslim politicians mounted a campaign for the verdict's nullification. The judgement in favour of the woman in this case evoked criticisms among Muslims, some of whom cited the Qur'an to show that the judgement was in conflict with Islamic law. It triggered controversy about the extent of having different civil codes for different religions in India.
The case caused the Congress government, with its absolute majority, to pass the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which diluted the judgment of the Supreme Court and restricted the right of Muslim divorcées to alimony from their former husbands for only 90 days after the divorce (the period of iddah in Islamic law). However, in later judgements including the Danial Latifi v. Union of India case and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, the Supreme Court of India interpreted the act in a manner reassuring the validity of the case and consequently upheld the Shah Bano judgement, and The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 was nullified. Some Muslims, including the All India Shia Personal Law Board, supported the Supreme Court's order to make the right to maintenance of a divorced Muslim wife absolute.