Muslims will not be able to keep 4 wives, a woman can ask for alimony even without divorce, which section do Muslims object to the most?

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has once again upheld the right of a Muslim woman to demand maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This decision brought back memories of the apex court’s landmark decision in the Shahbano Begum case of 1985. The controversial issue of granting maintenance allowance to Muslim women under the secular provision of Section 125 of the CrPC had echoed in the political corridors in 1985. At that time, in the case of Mohammad Ahmed Khan vs Shahbano Begum, the Constitution Bench had unanimously ruled that Muslim women are also entitled to receive maintenance allowance. Even if there is a conflict between the provisions of secular and ‘personal law’ regarding the amount of maintenance being demanded by a divorced wife, the effect of Section 125 of the CrPC will be paramount.
The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court said in its judgment that in the judgment of the Shahbano case, it was stated that a Muslim woman who is not able to maintain herself after being given or seeking divorce, is entitled to ask for maintenance from her husband. In this case, the issue of the husband’s maintenance obligation towards his/her wife has been widely discussed. Let us understand from a legal expert the basic aspects of this section and the complications associated with it.

What is section 125, which leads to jail for not providing maintenance

Advocate Anil Singh Srinet of the Supreme Court in Delhi says that the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is secular. The law in criminal cases is secular. Personal law is ineffective in such cases. There is a section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under this, if the wife is not capable, she can ask for maintenance from her husband. Under this section, a mother can also ask for maintenance from her son. This law is applicable to people of every religion. Muslim women are also included in this, they can ask for maintenance. If the husband refuses to pay maintenance, he/she will be punished on a monthly basis. That is, in the month in which he/she does not pay maintenance, he/she will be jailed for 1 month. This will have to be done until that person’s wife divorces him/her and marries someone else. Even without divorce, a Muslim woman can ask for alimony. If she feels that her husband neglects her after marrying the second wife, she can claim maintenance for herself.

Why so much aversion to Uniform Civil Code

According to Anil Kumar Singh Srinet, any criminal case is the same for all religions. Common Civil Code is applicable in criminal cases. For example, domestic violence cases are also dealt with under criminal cases. Personal law is not valid there either. This law has been there since the beginning. Section 125 of CrPC is a secular section. Since it is a criminal section, Muslims oppose this law in cases of divorce or domestic violence. They fear that with the implementation of Uniform Civil Code, Muslim women will become more powerful and will take their rights through the court.

Muslim women also have the right to alimony, joint accounts and ATM access, SC told how to get equal status

Section 125 is criminal in nature, personal law is not valid

According to Advocate Anil Singh Srinet, marriage, divorce, sharing property, donating or making a will are civil matters. For Muslims, these matters are dealt with under personal law. That is, Sharia law applies in such matters. Since Sharia law is not applicable in India. It applies only in civil matters of this community. At the same time, personal law cannot have any effect in criminal cases or semi-criminal cases like domestic violence or matters of criminal nature like divorce. Muslims say that Sharia law should be considered for them in these matters as well.

Why do Muslim men oppose it?

Muslim men oppose the Common Civil Code by saying that our personal law has a provision for divorce cases. But, their point cannot be accepted because in the future they can demand the implementation of personal law in criminal cases as well. The Muslim male community is afraid that with the introduction of Uniform Civil Code, Muslim women will become powerful. They can demand alimony. They can send their husbands to jail for domestic violence. Whereas there is no such special provision in Sharia. The arbitrariness of Muslim men will end. They can bring a second wife without paying alimony to the first wife. Whereas Section 125 can put a check on their arbitrariness. The first wife can demand adequate alimony without giving divorce. She can demand maintenance from her husband even while living with him/her. Whereas in personal law, the husband is not bound to do so.

Only 6% right in property, how will they survive

Advocate Anil Kumar Singh Srinet says that women do not have rights even in property matters in the Muslim community. Currently, according to Sharia, Muslim women have only 6 percent rights in the property. A wife gets only 6 percent share in her husband’s property. The son’s share is 45 percent, while the remaining share will be for the rest of the people including daughters. In such a situation, if a wife is not able to maintain herself, what will happen to her 6 percent?

What will change with the Uniform Civil Code

When Uniform Civil Code comes, it will be applicable in civil matters of Muslim community as well. One will not be able to keep four wives. There will be a ban on having more children. Property disputes will end. Muslim women will also have equal rights in their husband’s property. With this decision of Supreme Court, i.e. Section 125 of CrPC will be applicable to everyone. This hurts the Sharia law of Muslims.

What does the Muslim Personal Law, 1937 say

Advocate Shivaji Shukla of Saket Court in Delhi says that Muslim Personal Law (Sharia) Application Act, 1937 deals with the personal matters of Muslims. Under Islamic law, Muslim women can ask for Nafkah i.e. alimony from their husbands. However, there are many conditions for it. Under this law, every divorced Muslim woman whose Nikah was done under Muslim law is entitled to alimony. Nafkah includes all the expenses like food, clothing and shelter. If the Nikah is invalid, irregular, then the husband is not obliged to pay Nafkah. This is the problem of Nafkah against Muslim women.

The period of Iddat has significance in the Muslim Women Act

Advocate Shivaji Shukla says that many provisions related to maintenance have been made under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. According to this law, a Muslim wife has the right to get support during the period of Iddat. That is, a husband’s obligation towards his/her wife continues till the end of the period of Iddat. On the other hand, if the woman is unable to support herself after the period of Iddat is over, then she can demand fair and equal maintenance from her relatives who will be entitled to receive her property after her death.

What is Iddat, which has importance in the Muslim community

According to Advocate Shivaji Shukla, Iddat or Iddah in Islam is an Arabic word, which has come from there. It simply means the time of waiting. That is, the period after a woman’s divorce or the death of her husband is called Iddat, which is mandatory for that woman to follow. During this period, she cannot marry any other man. Its main purpose is to remove any kind of doubt about the paternity of a child born in the event of divorce or after the death of the former husband. Iddat can vary according to the circumstances. In most cases, the period of Iddat of a divorced woman is about 130 days. During this time, that woman is prohibited from marrying. If a woman is pregnant after divorce or widowhood, then Iddat continues until she gives birth to a child.

The Supreme Court has advocated for a common civil code

The Rajiv Gandhi government tried to clear the air by introducing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which sought to clarify the rights of such women at the time of divorce. The constitutional validity of the 1986 Act was upheld by a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Daniyal Latifi case in 2001.