Question 1: What was the recent Supreme Court judgment about?
• Answer: The recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mohd Abid Samad vs The State of Telangana upheld the divorced Muslim woman’s right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
Explanation: This judgment reiterates that divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, regardless of the provisions in the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (MWA).
Question 2:What is Section 125 of the CrPC?
• Answer: Section 125 of the CrPC provides a legal remedy for maintenance to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.
Explanation: It is a secular provision aimed at providing a fair and reasonable maintenance to those in need, irrespective of their religion.
Question 3:How did the Supreme Court’s decision relate to the Shah Bano case and the MWA?
• Answer: The judgment revisits the principles laid down in the Shah Bano case of 1985, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of maintenance rights for divorced Muslim women under Section 125 of the CrPC. This decision led to the enactment of the MWA in 1986, which was seen as a response to the Shah Bano judgment.
Explanation: The recent judgment clarifies that the MWA does not extinguish the rights of divorced Muslim women to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, reinforcing constitutional safeguards.
Question 4: What was the significance of the Danial Latifi vs Union of India case?
• Answer: In the Danial Latifi case of 2001, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the MWA and ensured that the rights provided under Section 125 of CrPC were not negated by the MWA.
Explanation: The Court ruled that the maintenance rights under the MWA must be consistent with the fair and reasonable provisions of Section 125, thereby protecting the rights of divorced Muslim women.
Question 5: What did the Supreme Court clarify about the nature of maintenance under the MWA?
• Answer: The Supreme Court clarified that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to all maintenance rights available under Section 125 of CrPC, and this does not get extinguished by the MWA.
Explanation: The Court emphasized that the provision for maintenance during the ‘iddat’ period (the waiting period post-divorce) and beyond is constitutionally valid and ensures justice for divorced Muslim women.
Question 6:What was the broader implication of the Supreme Court’s judgment?
• Answer: The broader implication is that the judgment reinforces the protection of divorced Muslim women’s rights under the Constitution, ensuring they have access to maintenance irrespective of religious laws.
Explanation: The Court’s ruling aligns with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, promoting equality and justice for all women.
SRIRAM’s
Share:
Get a call back
Fill the below form to get free counselling for UPSC Civil Services exam preparation