Danial Latifi vs Union of India

Case Name: Danial Latifi vs Union of India

Citation: AIR 2001 SC 3958

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Justice D.P. Mohapatra, Justice Doraiswamy Raju, Justice Shivraj V. Patil

Date of Decision: 28th September 2001

Parties:

Petitioner: Danial Latifi

Respondent: Union of India

Subject Matter: Constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, particularly concerning maintenance entitlements of Muslim women after the iddat period.

Statutes Referred:

• Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
• Constitution of India
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Facts of Danial Latifi vs Union of India

The case arises from the aftermath of the controversial decision in Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985).

Following the Shah Bano case, the Indian government enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, to address the maintenance rights of divorced Muslim women.

Danial Latifi, representing Shah Bano, challenged the constitutional validity of the Act on various grounds, particularly its inconsistency with Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The primary contention was whether Muslim women were entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, beyond the iddat period.

Issues Raised

The issues raised in Danial Latifi v Union of India were:

• Whether Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, is consistent with Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
• Whether the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, is constitutionally sound.
• Whether Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, beyond the iddat period.

Contentions

The petitioner argued in Danial Latifi vs Union of India that Section 125 of the CrPC was intended to provide relief to divorced wives, in line with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Denying maintenance to Muslim women under Section 125 would amount to discrimination and violate their fundamental rights.

The petitioner contended that Muslim women should be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC if they do not receive satisfactory maintenance during the iddat period.

The Solicitor General argued that the challenge made under this law was outside the realm of personal law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court in Danial Latifi v. Union of India upheld the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Court interpreted Section 3(1)(a) of the Act to mean that a Muslim husband’s obligation to provide maintenance extends beyond the iddat period.

If the husband fails to make reasonable and fair provisions for maintenance within the iddat period, the wife can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Danial Latifi vs Union of India Judgment

The Supreme Court, in Danial Latifi vs Union of India, upheld the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Court ruled that Muslim husbands are liable to provide maintenance to their divorced wives beyond the iddat period, as mandated by Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.

This obligation extends until the divorced wife remarries or is able to support herself. Failure to provide maintenance within the iddat period entitles the wife to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Conclusion

The Danial Latifi case marked a significant development in the interpretation of Muslim personal law concerning the maintenance rights of divorced Muslim women.

The Supreme Court’s judgment upheld the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, while also ensuring that Muslim women are not deprived of maintenance benefits equivalent to those provided to women of other religions under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Danial Latifi vs Union of India decision struck a balance between personal law and constitutional rights, reaffirming the principles of equality and right to life enshrined in the Indian Constitution.