The Muslim religious bodies have decided to adopt a wait and watch approach with respect to Supreme Court’s verdict earlier this week on Muslim women being entitled to a claim of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against her erstwhile husband.
The All India Muslim Personal Board (AIMPLB), while calling the verdict as being against the Muslim personal law, has opted for a cautious approach. AIMPLB spokesman SQR Ilyas told The Hindu, “The Supreme Court decision giving lifelong alimony to divorced Muslim women is against Sharia laws. In India Muslims are governed by Shariat Application Act which is based on Sharia, as Hindus are governed by the Hindu Code. Article 25 of the Constitution also guarantees freedom of religion. Therefore court must refrain from applying IPC or CrPC. contradicting the above provisions.” Mr. Ilyas revealed that the Board’s legal committee is studying the judgement. “On its advice, the Board may seek legal and other options available to us,” Mr. Ilyas said.
The All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat president Zafarul Islam Khan called the order a “judicial overreach” and drew parallels with the courts at various levels admitting petitions against historic mosques. “Muslims are governed by the Shariah Act 1937 and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act-1986. Such verdicts should not come,” Mr. Khan said while adding that Muslim organisations should approach a larger bench to overturn this decision.
Senior leaders of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) also preferred to understand the nuances of the verdict before deciding on a future course of action. A Jamiat leader said, “There have been similar judgments in the past too. We would like to study the judgement and will decide the future legal remedy only if needed. No knee jerk reaction is needed.” His words were echoed by a JIH leader who said, “The Jamaat is opposed to any hasty decision. Such matters are best dealt with after due deliberation and studying the verdict.”
Incidentally, the Supreme Court on July 10 had ruled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to a claim of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, against her former husband — affirming that a parallel remedy under a secular law cannot be foreclosed by existing personal laws.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih pronounced concurring judgments upholding the rights of a Muslim woman after a Muslim man challenged a Telangana High Court direction to pay ₹10,000 interim maintenance to his former wife. He had contended that the maintenance claim in his case would instead be governed by the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (1986 Act).
