Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001)
AIR 2001 SC 3958 — Clean, classroom-style explainer for students.
Quick Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. But it gave the Act a rights-protective reading: the husband must make a reasonable and fair provision for the divorced woman within the iddat period, and that provision can cover her needs beyond iddat. If she still cannot maintain herself, she may seek support from relatives or the State Wakf Board under Section 4. This approach keeps the spirit of Section 125 CrPC—preventing destitution—while respecting the Act.
Issues
- Is Section 3(1)Articles 14, 15, and 21?
- Is the 1986 Act constitutionally valid?
Rules
- Courts prefer an interpretation that keeps a law valid rather than strikes it down, if the text allows it.
- Section 125 CrPC prevents destitution; maintenance can go beyond iddat when needed.
- The 1986 Act speaks of maintenance during iddat, but the term provision in Section 3(1)(a) can cover post-iddat needs.
Facts (Timeline)
1985 — Shah Bano: SC held that a divorced Muslim woman can claim Section 125 CrPC maintenance even after mahr and iddat.
1986 — Parliament’s Response: Enacts the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, seen as limiting maintenance to iddat.
Later — Challenge: Petitioners question the constitutionality of the Act and how it treats divorced Muslim women.
2001 — Decision: SC upholds the Act but reads provision broadly to protect women beyond iddat.
Arguments
Appellant (Danial Latifi & others)
- The Act, if read narrowly, discriminates and violates Articles 14, 15, 21.
- It would deny protection similar to Section 125 CrPC and cause destitution.
- The term provision must be read to cover future needs, not just iddat.
Respondent (Union of India)
- The Act is a valid legislative choice respecting personal law.
- It has a separate mechanism: Section 3(1) for provision/maintenance, and Section 4 for support from relatives/Wakf Board.
- It can be interpreted to protect women consistently with constitutional values.
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the Act’s constitutionality. It held that the husband must, within the iddat period, make a reasonable and fair provision that can cover the woman’s post-iddat sustenance. If she still cannot maintain herself, she can seek orders against relatives or the State Wakf Board under Section 4. The Court stressed that this structure aligns with the purpose of Section 125 CrPC—preventing destitution and ensuring dignity.
Ratio
- Read provision in Section 3(1)(a) broadly to cover future needs beyond iddat.
- Use Section 4 to support a woman who cannot maintain herself after iddat.
- Maintain fidelity to the anti-vagrancy goal of Section 125 CrPC.
- With this reading, the Act does not violate Articles 14, 15, 21.
Why It Matters
The case bridges the gap between personal law and the constitutional promise of dignity. It protects divorced Muslim women from being left without support, while keeping faith with the legislative text. The Court shows how purposive interpretation can save a statute and still guard rights.
Key Takeaways
- Act upheld, but read to require a fair provision within iddat for post-iddat needs.
- Section 4 provides backup support via relatives/Wakf Board through a Magistrate.
- Purpose of Section 125 CrPC remains central: prevent destitution.
- No breach of Articles 14, 15, 21 on this interpretation.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “Fair Provision, Beyond Iddat” → F-P-B-I.
- Step 1 — Fair: Husband must make a reasonable and fair provision.
- Step 2 — Within iddat: Provision is arranged within iddat.
- Step 3 — Beyond iddat: That provision can sustain after iddat; else use Section 4.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Does Section 3(1) of the 1986 Act violate Articles 14, 15, 21? Is the Act valid?
Rule
Prefer validity-preserving interpretations; Section 125 CrPC prevents destitution; provision can cover future needs.
Application
Reading provision broadly safeguards women’s dignity and aligns with the Act and CrPC purpose.
Conclusion
Act is constitutional; fair provision within iddat can cover post-iddat support; use Section 4 if needed.
Glossary
- Iddat
- Waiting period after divorce. The Act looks at provisions made during this time.
- Reasonable and Fair Provision
- An arrangement by the husband within iddat that can sustain the woman even after iddat.
- Section 4 (1986 Act)
- Allows orders against relatives or the State Wakf Board if the woman cannot maintain herself post-iddat.
- Section 125 CrPC
- General maintenance provision to prevent destitution across communities.
FAQs
Footer
Slug: danial-latifi-v-union-of-india-2001
Publisher: The Law Easy — Reviewed by The Law Easy
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now