Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)
Makiur Rahaman Kha And Anr. vs Mahila Bibi on 10 December, 2001 cites

Danial Latifi & Anr vs Union Of India on 28 September, 2001

11. It is clear that a Muslim divorced woman cannot invoke the provisions of Section 125 of Cr. P C against her former husband if she does not exercise her option under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. Section 4(1) of the Act contains the provision for maintenance to the divorced woman from her children but this does in fact not debar the divorced Muslim woman from invoking the provision of Section 125 of Cr. PC against her children. Even under the Act the application of the provisions of Section 125 of Cr. PC has been contemplated and the Act has not specifically made any ouster of the application of Section 125 Cr.PC Section 5 of the Act has imposed one condition for the application of sections 125 to 128 of Cr. P C against former husband of the divorced Muslim woman but it is conspicuously silent as regards their application against others. The framework of the Act itself and the ratio decided in the case of Danial Latifi (supra) which we have discussed above will show that the Act itself is not a substituted measure of Section 125 of Cr. P C but in addition thereto. This suggests that the proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.PC against children of the respondent mother is quite maintainable despite the pendency of the proceeding under sections 3, 4 of the Act against her husband. I do not find any illegality or irregularity as regards the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate in favour of the respondent mother against her children under Section 125 of Cr. P C. Accordingly, the present revisional application is dismissed on contest. The impugned order dated 24.1.2001 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia is hereby affirmed. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 131 - Full Document

Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum And Ors on 23 April, 1985

9. The Constitutional validity of the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Danial Latifi (supra) and it was submitted that, "(i) Section 125 Cr.PC, was enacted as a matter of public policy, in order to provide a quick summary remedy to persons unable to maintain themselves; that the provision reflected the moral stance of the law and ought not to have been entangled with religion and religion-based personal laws; (ii) Section 125 Cr. P C also furthers the concept of social justice embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India; hence excluding divorced Muslim women from its protection is a discrimination against them; (iii) the inevitable effect of the Act is to nullify the law declared by the Supreme Court in Shah Bano case , which is most improper; (iv) the Act is un-Islamic and also has the potential to suffocate Muslim women and to undermine the basic secular character of the Constitution; (v) the Act is violative of Articles 14 and 21."
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 154 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1