What did the Supreme Court decide in Danial Latifi?

The Court upheld the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and read it to require a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance beyond the iddat period.

Is the husband’s liability limited to iddat?

No. He must, at divorce, make a fair provision for the wife’s future needs; maintenance responsibility is not confined to iddat alone.

What remedy does Section 4 provide?

A divorced Muslim woman who has not remarried may claim maintenance from her relatives; if they cannot pay, the Magistrate can direct the State Waqf Board to pay.

Were Articles 14, 15 and 21 violated?

No. The Supreme Court held the Act does not offend Articles 14, 15 or 21, so the law is constitutionally valid.

How does this ruling relate to Shah Bano?

While the Act followed Shah Bano, the Court interpreted it to protect divorced women by ensuring fair provision and maintenance beyond iddat, aligning with constitutional values.

Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740

Muslim Women Act upheld — “reasonable & fair provision and maintenance” extends beyond iddat. Easy, classroom-style explainer.

Supreme Court of India Year: 2001 Bench: Constitution Bench (5) Citation: (2001) 7 SCC 740 Personal Law · Constitutional 7 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi India Published: October 31, 2025 Slug: danial-latifi-v-union-of-india-2001-7-scc-740

Quick Summary

Core idea: The Supreme Court upheld the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The husband must, at divorce, make a reasonable and fair provision for the wife’s future, so maintenance is not confined to iddat. If needed, a divorced woman may proceed under Section 4 against relatives, and failing that, the State Waqf Board can be directed to pay.

Validity: Act does not violate Articles 14, 15, 21.
Protection: Fair provision + maintenance for life needs beyond iddat.
Remedy: Section 4 route—relatives, else Waqf Board.

Issues

Is the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 constitutionally valid?
Does the Act limit the husband’s liability to the iddat period only?
What post-divorce remedies are available to a divorced Muslim woman under the Act?

Rules

Reasonable & fair provision: The husband must provide for the woman’s future needs; the obligation extends beyond iddat.
Section 4 pathway: If she has not remarried, she may claim from relatives; if they cannot maintain her, the State Waqf Board may be directed to pay.
Constitutional harmony: The Act, as interpreted, does not offend Articles 14, 15, 21.

Facts (Timeline)

1985: Shah Bano judgment expands maintenance protection for divorced Muslim women.

1986: Parliament enacts the Muslim Women Act, seen by some as restricting liability to iddat.

Challenge: Claims the Act violates Articles 14, 15, 21 and limits maintenance unfairly.

2001: Supreme Court in Danial Latifi interprets the Act to protect women’s rights and tests its constitutional validity.

Timeline of events leading to Danial Latifi decision

Arguments

Petitioners

Act allegedly curtails Shah Bano; limits liability to iddat.
Violates equality and dignity under Articles 14, 15, 21.
Sought reading down or striking down for constitutional compliance.

Union of India

Act provides complete scheme: fair provision + maintenance.
Section 4 ensures support via relatives/Waqf Board if needed.
Law aligns with constitutional guarantees when properly interpreted.

Judgment

Held: The Act is constitutionally valid. The husband must, at the time of divorce, make a reasonable and fair provision for the wife’s future. This obligation extends beyond iddat. A woman who has not remarried can move under Section 4 against relatives; failing them, the Magistrate may direct the State Waqf Board to pay.

Constitutional challenge: The provisions, as interpreted, do not offend Articles 14, 15 or 21. The Act was upheld.

Gavel and statute pages symbolising the Danial Latifi judgment

Ratio (Legal Principle)

Purposive reading of the Act: “Reasonable and fair provision and maintenance” is to secure a divorced woman’s future, not merely her iddat. The statutory scheme remains consistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.

Why It Matters

Women’s economic security: Confirms post-divorce support beyond a short ritual period.
Constitution-first approach: Harmonises personal law with Articles 14, 15, 21.
Clear remedies: Practical path via relatives and Waqf Board where necessary.

Key Takeaways

The Act is valid; it protects divorced Muslim women.
Fair provision + maintenance go beyond iddat.
Section 4: relatives first; else Waqf Board can be directed.
No violation of Articles 14, 15, 21.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “F-I-R” — Fair provision, not just Iddat, with Relatives/Waqf as backstop.

Fair: Husband plans for wife’s future needs at divorce.
Iddat ≠ limit: Support interpreted to extend beyond iddat.
Relief path: Section 4 → relatives → Waqf Board if needed.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Is the 1986 Act constitutionally valid?	Interpret Act to ensure fair provision & maintenance; check Articles 14, 15, 21.	Reading “fair provision” purposively protects dignity and equality.	Valid—no violation of 14, 15, 21.
Is liability limited to iddat?	Husband must provide for future needs; Section 4 support route.	Obligation framed at divorce extends beyond iddat; relatives/Waqf backstop.	No—extends beyond iddat.

Glossary

Iddat: A waiting period after divorce. The Court held support is not limited to this period.
Fair provision: A lump-sum/arrangement made at divorce to secure the wife’s future needs.
Section 4 (Act, 1986): Allows claims against relatives; failing them, Waqf Board may be directed to pay.