Introduction:

In the case of X v. Y [2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 24], the Patna High Court reaffirmed that a Muslim woman, even after divorce, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) if her former husband has not made adequate provision for her sustenance during or after the iddat period. Justice Jitendra Kumar, while referring to Supreme Court precedents, including Danial Latifi v. Union of India and Md. Abdul Samad v. State of Bihar emphasized that the existence of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, does not negate a divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC. The case involved a woman who was married in 2007 and had a daughter from the marriage. She alleged that her husband and in-laws subjected her to cruelty for the additional dowry of Rs. 2,00,000 and eventually ousted her. She subsequently filed a criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC and sought Rs. 20,000 per month for herself and her daughter. The husband contended that he had divorced her in 2012 via triple talaq, paid Dainmehar, and provided maintenance for the iddat period. However, the Family Court awarded only Rs. 1,500 per month for the wife and Rs. 5,000 as litigation costs while making no provision for the daughter’s maintenance. The wife challenged the inadequacy of the maintenance, the omission of her daughter’s share, and the timeline of the maintenance order.

Arguments:

The petitioner-wife argued that despite her divorce, her former husband had not made adequate provisions for her sustenance beyond the iddat period. She contended that under Section 125 Cr.PC, she was entitled to maintenance as she was unable to support herself and her minor daughter. She claimed that her husband was well-off, owning a boutique in Mumbai with an income of Rs. 30,000 per month, agricultural land, and another shop. Furthermore, she highlighted that allegations of adultery against her were baseless and unsupported by evidence. The respondent-husband countered that he had duly divorced the petitioner through triple talaq in 2012 in the presence of a village panchayat and had provided Dainmehar along with maintenance for the iddat period. He further alleged that his former wife was living in adultery and had refused to return to the matrimonial home. The husband maintained that he had dependents, including aged parents and a second wife, and thus could not afford to provide a substantial maintenance amount.

Judgment:

The Patna High Court, after evaluating the arguments and evidence, observed that the husband had failed to prove his claim of adultery against his former wife. The Court held that mere suspicion without substantive proof could not deprive the petitioner of her right to maintenance. It also ruled that the existence of the 1986 Act did not bar Muslim women from seeking relief under Section 125 Cr.PC if the former husband had not made adequate provision for her sustenance. The Court noted that since the husband had not ensured her financial security post-iddat, she was entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC. It further emphasized that a minor daughter is unequivocally entitled to maintenance from her father. Considering the financial condition of both parties, the Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 2,000 per month to both the wife and the daughter, totaling Rs. 4,000 per month. The petition filed by the wife and daughter was thus allowed, and the High Court corrected the Family Court’s omission regarding the daughter’s entitlement.