http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: NOOR SABA KHATOON

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOHD. QUASIM

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/07/1997

BENCH: A. S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T DR. ANAND. J,      A short  but  interesting  question  involved  in  this appeal, by  Special Leave, is whether the children of muslim parents are  entitled to  grant of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.  P. C.  for the period till they attain majority or are able to maintain themselves whichever date is earlier or in the  case of  female children till they get married or is their right  restrict to the grant of maintenance only for a period of  two years prescribed under Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Women  (protection of  Rights on  Divorce) Act,  1986 notwithstanding Section 125 Cr. P. C.      The  appellant  married  the  respondent  according  to muslim  rites  on  27.10.1980.  During  the  wedlock,  three children were  born -  two daughters  and a  son. On certain disputes  arising   between  the   parties,  the  respondent allegedly turned  the appellant  out of the matrimonial home alongwith the  three children then aged 6 years, 3 years and 1 1/2  years and  also refused and neglected to maintain her and the children thereafter. After turning the appellant out of the  matrimonial home, the respondent took a second wife, Shahnawaz Begum, Claiming that the appellant has no means to maintain herself  and the  children and  that the respondent had both  agricultural land  and was carrying on business in electrical appliances  as well and had sufficient income and means to  maintain them,  she  filed  an  application  under Section 125  Cr. P.  C. in  the Court  of Shri  A.  K.  Jha, Judicial Magistrate,  First Class,  Gopalganj, on 13.2.1992. She claimed a sum of Rs. 400/- per month for herself and Rs. 300/- per  month  as  maintenance  for  each  of  the  three children. The  application was contested, though it was only the appellant,  who adduced  evidence at  the trial  and the respondent/husband did  not lead  any  evidence.  The  Trial Court found  that the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain his wife and children and that             they had no source  of income  or means  to maintain  themselves  and accordingly held  that they  were entitled  to the  grant of maintenance  from   the  respondent.   By  its  order  dated 19.1.1993, the  Trial Court  directed the  respondent to pay maintenance to  the appellant  at the  rate of Rs. 200/- per

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

month for herself and at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month for each of  the three  minor children, till they attain the age of majority.  While the  matter rested  thus, the respondent divorced the  appellant and  thereafter filed an application in the  Trial Court  seeking modification of the order dated 19.1.1993, in  view of  the provisions  of the  Muslim Women (Protection of  Rights on  Divorce) Act,  1986  (hereinafter referred to  as the  1986 Act). By an order dated 27.7.1993, the Trial  Court modified the order dated 19.1.1993, insofar as the  grant of  maintenance to  the appellant is concerned while maintaining  the order granting maintenance to each of the three  minor  children.  Insofar  as  the  appellant  is concerned,  the  Trial  Court  held  that  in  view  of  the provisions of  the 1986  Act the  appellant-wife  after  her divorce was  entitled to  maintenance only  for a  period of three months  i.e. for  the period of Iddat. The Trial Court further found  that the  right to  maintenance under Section 125 Cr.  P. C. insofar as the children are concerned was not affected by  the 1986  Act in  any manner.  The order  dated 27.7.1993  was   challenged  by  the  respondent  through  a Revision Petition  in the  Court of  2nd  Additional  Judge, Gopalganj. On  16.7.1994, the revisional court dismissed the revision petition  holding that  the 1986 Act does not over- ride the  provisions of  Section 125  Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance to  the minor  children and that Section 3(1)(b) of the  1986 Act  also entitles  a divorced  woman to  claim reasonable  and   fair  maintenance  from  her  husband  for maintaining the  children born  to her  before or  after her divorce from  her former  husband for  a period of two years from the  respective dates of birth of the children and that the said  provision did  not affect the right to maintenance of the  minor children  granted by Section 125 Cr. P. C. The respondent, thereupon, filed a Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482  Cr. P.  C. in  the High  Court challenging  the correctness of  that part  of the  order of  the  revisional court which  upheld the  right to  maintenance of  the three minor children  under Section  125 Cr.  P. C. at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month per child. A learned single Judge of the High Court  accepted the  plea of  the respondent  that vide Section 3(1)(b)  of the 1986 Act, a divorced muslim woman is entitled to  claim maintenance from her previous husband for her minor  children only  for a period of two years from the date of  birth of  the concerned  child and  that the  minor children  were  not  entitled  to  claim  maintenance  under Section 125  Cr. P.  C. after  the coming  into force of the 1986 Act. The High Court noticed that the tow older children were aged  6 years  and 3  years when  the  application  for maintenance was  filed on  their behalf by their mother, and thus "had  completed two  years  prior  to  filling  of  the petition for  grant of  maintenance", and  as such those two children  were  held  not  entitled  to  the  grant  of  any maintenance under  Section 125  Cr. P. C. and that the third child, who  was only  1 1/2  years of  age on 19.1.1993, was entitled to receive maintenance till she attained the age of two years i.e. till 19.7.1993 from the date of filing of the application i.e.  13.2.1992. With the said modification, the miscellaneous  application  of  the  respondent-husband  was partly allowed. By special leave to appeal the appellant has come up to this court.      The facts are not in dispute. The appellant had filed a petition for  grant of  maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for  herself as  well as  on behalf of the three children born during the wedlock, who were living with her, since the respondent had  refused and  neglected to  maintain them. On the date  of the  application filed under Section 125 Cr. P.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

C. i.e.  13.2.1992, the  children were aged 6 years, 3 years and 1  1/2 years. After the Trial Court granted the petition under Section  125 Cr.  P. C. in favour of the appellant and the  three  minor  children,  the  respondent  divorced  the appellant and  filed an  application seeking modification of the order  of maintenance  in view  of the provisions of the 1986 Act.  The  trial  court  modified  its  order  qua  the appellant, restricting  the  grant  of  maintenance  to  the period of  Iddat but maintained its earlier order insofar as the children  are  concerned.  While  the  revisional  court declined to interfere with the order of the Trial Court, the High Court  based itself  on Section 3(1)(b) of the 1986 Act to hold  that the  grant of  maintenance to  the children of divorced muslim  parents,  living  with  their  mother,  was restricted to  the period  prescribed under the said section notwithstanding the provisions of Section 125 Cr. P. C..      Does Section  3(1)(b) of the 1986 Act is any way affect the rights  of the minor children of divorced muslim parents to the  grant of  maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. is thus the moot question?      The preamble to the 1986 Act reads:      "An Act  to protect  the rights  of      Muslim women who have been divorced      by, or  have obtained  divorce from      their husbands  and to  provide for      matters  connected   therewith   or      incidental thereto."      The Act,  thus, aims  to protect  the rights  of Muslim Women who  have been divorced. The 1986 Act was enacted as a sequel to  the judgment  in Mohd.  Ahmed Khan  vs. shah Bano Begum, AIR  1985 SC  945. The  question  of  maintenance  of children was  not involved in the controversy arising out of the judgment in the case of Shah Bano Begum (supra). The Act was not  enacted to  regulate the  obligations of  a  muslim father to  maintain his  minor children  unable to  maintain themselves which  continued to  be governed with Section 125 Cr. P.  C.. This  position clearly emerges from a perusal of the relevant provisions of the 1986 Act.      Section 3  of the  1986 Act  to the extent relevant for this case reads:           Sec.   3    Mahr   or    other      properties of  Muslim woman  to  be      given  to   her  at   the  time  of      divorce.-    (1)    Notwithstanding      anything contained in any other law      for the  time  being  in  force,  a      divorced woman  shall  be  entitled      to-           (a)  a   reasonable  and  fair      provision  and  maintenance  to  be      made and  paid to  her  within  the      iddat period her former husband;           (b)    where    she    herself      maintains the  children born to her      before  or  after  her  divorce,  a      reasonable and  fair provision  and      maintenance to  be made and paid by      her former  husband for a period of      two ears  from the respective dated      of birth of such children;           (c) an amount equal to the sum      of mahr  or dower agreed to be paid      to her  at her time of her marriage      or at any time thereafter according      to Muslim law; and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

         (d) all  the properties  given      to her  before or  at the  time  of      marriage or  after the  marriage by      her relatives  or  friends  or  the      husband or  any  relatives  of  the      husband or his friends.      ...................................      .............."      From a  plain  reading  of  the  above  Section  it  is manifest that  it deals with "Mahr" or other properties of a muslim woman  to be  given to her at the time of divorce. It lays down  that a  reasonable and  fair provision  has to be made for  payment of maintenance to her during the period of Iddat by  her former  husband. Clause  (b) of  Section  3(1) (supra) provides  for grant of additional maintenance to her for the fosterage period of two years from the date of birth of the  child of  marriage for maintaining that child during the  fosterage.   Maintenance  for   the  prescribed  period referred to  in Clause (b) of Section 3(1) is granted on the claim  or   the  divorced  mother  on  her  own  behalf  for maintaining the  infant/infants for  a period  of tow  years from the date of the birth of the child concerned who is/are living with  her and  presumably is  aimed at providing some extra amount  to the  mother for her nourishment for nursing or taking  care of  the infant/infants  upto a period of two years.  It   has  nothing  to  do  with  the  right  of  the child/children to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. So  long as  the conditions  for the grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. are satisfied, the rights of the minor children,  unable  to  maintain  themselves,  are  not affected by  Section 3(1)(b)  of the 1986 Act. Under Section 125 Cr.  P. C. the maintenance of the children is obligatory on the  father (irrespective of his religion) and as long as he is  in a  position to  do so  and the  children  have  no independent means  of their  own, it  remains  his  absolute obligation to  provide for them. Insofar as children born of muslim parents are concerned there is nothing in Section 125 Cr. P.  C. which exempts a muslim father from his obligation to maintain  the children. These provisions are not affected by clause  (b) of Section 3(1) of the 1986 Act and indeed it would  be   unreasonable,  unfair,   inequitable  and   even preposterous to deny the benefit of Section 125 Cr. P. C. to the children only on the ground that they are born of Muslim parents. The effect of a beneficial legislation like Section 125 Cr.  P. C.,  cannot be  allowed to  be  defeated  except through clear  provisions of  a  statute.  We  do  not  find manifestation of  any such intention in the 1986 Act to take away  the  independent  rights  of  the  children  to  claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. where they are minor and are  unable  to  maintain  themselves.  Muslim  father’s obligation, like  that of  a Hindu  father, to  maintain his minor children  as contained  in Section  125 Cr.  P. C.  is absolute and  is not  at all  affected  by  Section  Section 3(1)(b) of  the 1986  Act. Indeed  a muslim father can claim custody of  the children  born through  the divorced wife to fulfil his  obligation to  maintain them and if he succeeds, he need  not suffer  an order or direction under Section 125 Cr. P.  C. but  where such  custody has  not been claimed by him, he  cannot refuse  and neglect  to maintain  his  minor children on  the ground  that the has divorced their mother. The right of the children to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.  P. C.  is separate, distinct and independent of the right of  their divorcee  mother to  claim  maintenance  for herself for  maintaining the infant children upto the age of 2 years  from the date of birth of the concerned child under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

Section 3(1)  of the  Act. There  is nothing in the 1986 Act which  in   any  manner   affects  the  application  of  the provisions of  Sections 125-128 of the Cr. P. C. relating to grant of  maintenance insofar  as minor  children of  muslim parents, unable to maintain themselves, are concerned.      Indeed Section  3(1) of  1986 Act  begins  with  a  non obstante clause  "notwithstanding any thing contained in any other law  for the  time being  in  force"  and  clause  (b) thereof provides  that a divorced woman shall be entitled to a reasonable  and fair  provision  for  maintenance  by  her former husband  to maintain  the children  born out  of  the wedlock for  a period of two years from the date of birth of such children,  but the  non obstante  clause in our opinion only restricts  and confines  the right of a divorcee muslim woman to  claim or  receive maintenance  for herself and for maintenance of  the child/children  till they attain the age of tow  years, notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  any other law for the time being in force in that behalf. It has nothing to  do with  the independent right or entitlement of the minor  children to be maintained by their muslim father. A careful reading of the provisions of Section 125 Cr. P. C. and Section  3(1)(b) of the 1986 Act makes it clear that the two provisions  apply and  cover  different  situations  and there is no conflict, much less a real one, between the two. Whereas the  1986 Act  deals with the obligation of a muslim husband vis-a-vis his divorced wife including the payment of maintenance to  her for  a period  of two years of fosterage for maintaining  the infant/infants,  where they  are in the custody of  the mother, the obligation of a muslim father to maintain the  minor children  is governed by section 125 Cr. P. C.  and his  obligation to maintain them is absolute till they attain  majority or  are able  to maintain  themselves, whichever date  is earlier.  In the  case of female children this obligation  extends till their marriage. Apart from the statutory provisions  referred  to  above,  even  under  the Muslim personal  Law, the right of minor children to receive maintenance  from  their  father,  till  they  are  able  to maintain themselves, is absolute.      Prof. Tahir  Mahmood, in his book "Statute-Law relating to Muslims  in India"  (1995 Edn.)  while dealing  with  the effect of  the provisions  of Section  125 Cr.  P. C. on the 1986 Act and the Muslim personal law observes at page 198:           "These provisions  of the Code      remain  fully   applicable  to  the      Muslims,    notwithstanding     the      controversy resulting  from the Has      Bano case  and the enactment of the      Muslim Women  (Protection of Rights      on divorce)  Act,  1986.  There  is      nothing in  that  Act  in  any  way      affecting the  application of these      provisions  to   the  children  and      parents    governed    by    Muslim      law..............................           As regards  children, the Code      adopts the age of minority from the      Majority  Act,   1875  by   saying:      "Minor means  a person  who,  under      the  provisions   of   the   Indian      Majority Act,  1875 (9  of 1875) is      deemed not  to  have  attained  his      majority" - [Explanation to section      125 (1),  clause (a)].  Ordinarily,      thus, every  Muslim child  below 18      can invoke  the CrPC  law to obtain

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

    maintenance  from  its  parents  if      they   "neglect   or   refuse"   to      maintain   it    despite    "giving      sufficient      means".............................      .......      ...................................      ......      ...................................      ......      By Muslim  law maintenance (nafaqa)      is a birth right of children and an      absolute liability  of the  father.      Daughters    are     entitled    to      maintenance till  they get  married      if they  are  bakira  (maiden),  or      till they get remarried if they are      thaviba (divorce/widow).  Sons  are      entitled  to     till  they  attain      bulugh if  they are  normal; and as      long  as   necessary  if  they  are      handicapped or  indigent. providing      maintenance to daughters is a great      religious virtue.  The Prophet  had      said:           "Whoever  has   daughters  and      spends all  that the  has on  their      upbringing  well,  on  the  Day  of      Judgment, be  as close to me as two      fingers of a hand.           If  a  father  is  a  poverty-      stricken   and   cannot   therefore      provide    maintenance    to    his      children,  while  their  mother  is      affluent, the  mother must  provide      them   maintenance    subject    to      reimbursement by  the  father  when      his financial condition improves.           (Emphasis supplied)      Thus, both under the personal law and the statutory law (Sec. 125  Cr. P.  C.) the  obligation of  a muslim  father, having sufficient  means, to  maintain his  minor  children, unable to maintain themselves, till they attain majority and in case  of females  till they  get  married,  is  absolute, notwithstanding the  fact that the minor children are living with the divorced wife.      Thus, our  answer to  the question posed in the earlier part of  the opinion  is that the children of muslim parents are entitled  to claim  maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for  the period  till they attain majority or are able to maintain themselves,  whichever is  earlier and  in case  of females, till  they get  married,  and  this  right  is  not restricted, affected  or controlled by divorcee wife’s right to   claim    maintenance   for   maintaining   the   infant child/children in her custody for a period of tow years from the date  of birth  of the  child  concerned  under  Section 3(1)(b) of  the 1986  Act. In other words Section 3(1)(b) of the 1986  Act does  not in  any way affect the rights of the minor  children   of  divorced   muslim  parents   to  claim maintenance from  their father  under Section  125 Cr. P. C. till  they   attain  majority   or  are   able  to  maintain themselves, or  in  the  case  of  females,  till  they  are married.      It, therefore, follows that the learned Trial Court was perfectly right  in  directing  the  payment  of  amount  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

maintenance to  each of  the three children as per the order dated 19.1.1993  and the  learned  2nd  Additional  Sessions Judge also  committed no  error in  dismissing the  revision petition filed  by the  respondent. The  High court,  on the other hand, fell in complete error in holding that the right to claim  maintenance of  the children under Section 125 Cr. P. C.  was taken  away and  superseded by Section 3(1)(b) of the 1986  Act and  that maintenance was payable to the minor children of  Muslim parents  only for  a period of two years from  the   date  of   the  birth  of  the  child  concerned notwithstanding the provisions of Section 125 Cr. P. C.. The order of  the High Court cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly  set aside.  The order of the Trial Court and the Revisional  Court is  restored. This appeal succeeds and is allowed but without any orders as to cost.      The arrears  of maintenance  in respect of the children shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant-mother, who filed the petition on their behalf, within one year form the date of  this  order  in  four  equal  instalments,  payable quarterly. The  first instalment  shall be paid on or before August 15,  1997 and  thereafter  every  three  months.  Any single default  in the  payment of  the arrears will entitle the appellant  to recover  the entire balance amount at once with 12%  interest through  the Trial  Court in  the  manner prescribed by the Code. The respondent shall continue to pay maintenance  as  directed  by  the  trial  court,  till  the children attain  minority or are able to maintain themselves and in the case of the daughters, till they get married.