Validity of Muslim Women Act, 1986

Danial Latifi and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) (28.09.2026 - SC) : MANU/SC/0595/2001

Case Note:
Family - Maintenance - Section 3(1)(a) Muslim Women Act, 1986 - Petition was filed against validity of Muslim Women Act - - Whether, if husband had paid mahr to wife then would it indemnify husband from his obligation under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Held, a careful reading of the provisions of the Act would indicate that at time of divorce Muslim husband was required to contemplate future needs and made preparatory arrangements in advance for meeting those needs - No where the Parliament has provided that reasonable and fair provision and maintenance was limited only for the iddat period and not beyond it - It would extend to whole life of divorced wife unless she gets married for a second time - - - - Petition dismissed.

While upholding the validity of the Act, we may sum up our conclusions:

1) A Muslim husband is liable to make reasonable and fair provision for the future of the divorced wife which obviously includes her maintenance as well. Such a reasonable and fair provision extending beyond the iddat period must be made by the husband within the iddat period in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.

2) Liability of Muslim husband to his divorced wife arising under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act to pay maintenance is not confined to iddat period.

3) A divorced Muslim woman who has not remarried and who is not able to maintain herself after iddat period can proceed as provided under Section 4 of the Act against her relatives who are liable to maintain her in proportion to the properties which they inherit on her death according to Muslim law from such divorced woman including her children and parents. If any of the relatives being unable to pay maintenance, the Magistrate may direct the State Wakf Board established under the Act to pay such maintenance.

4) The provisions of the Act do not offend Articles 14 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.