Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – s.3 – Where a husband has fulfilled his obligations under Section 3 of the 1986 Act – The divorced Muslim woman subsequently prefers to invoke Section 125 of CrPC, 1973 on the ground of inability to maintain herself: Held: In a case where a husband has fulfilled his obligations under Section 3 of the 1986 Act or as provided by customary or personal law so followed, and the divorced Muslim woman subsequently prefers to invoke Section 125 of CrPC 1973 on the ground of inability to maintain herself, in such a factual matrix, undeniably, the right to move under this provision is open in favour of a divorced Muslim woman – When a husband opposes resort to Section 125 CrPC 1973, he has to establish that, (a) initial obligations under the customary and/or personal statutory enactments as detailed earlier stands fulfilled by him, and (b) that the wife, in the light of this, is able to maintain herself – However, if the husband fails to sustain the said objection(s) raised during the proceedings initiated under Section 125 of CrPC 1973, and an order is accordingly passed, it would not be inherently barred or liable to be cancelled through an application under Section 127(3)(b) of CrPC 1973 – Nevertheless, other appropriate remedies as provided under the CrPC 1973 or any other law to that effect, shall always be open to be exercised by such a husband to seek setting aside or appropriate modification of an order so passed under Section 125 of CrPC 1973. [Para 35]

(i) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to all married women including

Muslim married women; (ii) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to

all non-Muslim divorced women; (iii) Whether section 125 of the

CrPC applies to all such Muslim women, married and divorced

under the Special Marriage Act in addition to remedies available

under the Special Marriage Act; (iv) If Muslim women are married

and divorced under Muslim law, whether Section 125 of the CrPC

as well as the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of

Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 are applicable; (v) If Section 125 of

the CrPC is also resorted to by a divorced Muslim woman, as per

the definition under the 1986 Act, whether any order passed under

the provisions of 1986 Act shall be taken into consideration under

Section 127(3)(b) of the CrPC; (vi) In case of an illegal divorce

as per the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights

on Marriage) Act, 2019, whether relief under Section 5 of the said

Act could be availed for seeking subsistence allowance or, at the

option of such a Muslim woman, remedy under Section 125 of

the CrPC could also be availed; (vii) In case of an illegal divorce

as per the provisions of the 2019 Act, during the pendency of a

petition filed under section 125 of the CrPC, if a Muslim is ‘divorced’

whether she can take recourse under Section 125 of the CrPC

or file a petition under the 2019 Act; (viii) Whether the provisions

of the 2019 Act provide remedy in addition to or in derogation of

Section 125 of the CrPC.

Headnotes†

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Whether section

125 CrPC applies to all married women including Muslim

married women:

* Author

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1237

Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.

Held: Yes – Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all married women

including Muslim married women. [Per Court]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Whether section

125 CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women:

Held: Yes – Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all non-Muslim

divorced women. [Per Court]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Whether section

125 of the CrPC applies to all such Muslim women, married

and divorced under the Special Marriage Act in addition to

remedies available under the Special Marriage Act:

Held: Yes – Insofar as divorced Muslim women are concerned,

Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all such Muslim women,

married and divorced under the Special Marriage Act in addition

to remedies available under the Special Marriage Act. [Per Court]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – If Muslim women

are married and divorced under Muslim law, whether Section

125 of the CrPC as well as the provisions of the Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 are applicable:

Held: If Muslim women are married and divorced under Muslim law

then Section 125 of the CrPC as well as the provisions of the 1986

Act are applicable – Option lies with the Muslim divorced women

to seek remedy under either of the two laws or both laws – This

is because the 1986 Act is not in derogation of Section 125 of the

CrPC but in addition to the said provision. [Per Court]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – s.127(3)(b) – If

Section 125 of the CrPC is also resorted to by a divorced Muslim

woman, as per the definition under the 1986 Act, whether any

order passed under the provisions of 1986 Act shall be taken

into consideration under Section 127(3)(b) of the CrPC:

Held: Yes – If Section 125 of the CrPC is also resorted to by a

divorced Muslim woman, as per the definition under the 1986 Act,

then any order passed under the provisions of 1986 Act shall be

taken into consideration under Section 127(3)(b) of the CrPC.

[Per Court]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – In case of an 

1238 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

illegal divorce as per the provisions of the Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, whether relief

under Section 5 of the said Act could be availed for seeking

subsistence allowance or, at the option of such a Muslim

woman, remedy under Section 125 of the CrPC could also

be availed:

Held: Yes – In case of an illegal divorce as per the provisions of

the 2019 Act then, relief under Section 5 of the said Act could be

availed for seeking subsistence allowance or, at the option of such

a Muslim woman, remedy under Section 125 of the CrPC could

also be availed. [Per Court]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – In case of an

illegal divorce as per the provisions of the 2019 Act, during

the pendency of a petition filed under section 125 of the CrPC,

if a Muslim is ‘divorced’ whether she can take recourse under

Section 125 of the CrPC or file a petition under the 2019 Act:

Held: Yes – If during the pendency of a petition filed under Section

125 of the CrPC, a Muslim woman is ‘divorced’ then she can take

recourse under Section 125 of the CrPC or file a petition under

the 2019 Act. [Per Court]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Whether the

provisions of the 2019 Act provide remedy in addition to or

in derogation of Section 125 of the CrPC:

Held: The provisions of the 2019 Act provide remedy in addition

to and not in derogation of Section 125 of the CrPC. [Per Court]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – A measure for

social justice:

Held: Numerous decisions of this Court went on to state that

Section 125 of CrPC 1973 is a measure for social justice to protect

the weaker sections, irrespective of applicable personal laws of

the parties, as contemplated through Articles 15(3) and 38 of the

Constitution of India – The purpose of Section 125 of CrPC 1973

has been spelt out to prevent vagrancy and destitution of the person

claiming rights through invoking the procedure established under

the said provision – However, in Inderjit Kaur v. Union of India and

Others, it was clarified qua the wife that such a right is not absolute 

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1239

Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.

in nature and is always subject to final determination of the rights

of the parties by appropriate courts – Further emphasis has also

been placed on the expression “unable to maintain herself” and

that the burden of proof is on the wife to prove the existence of

said circumstances leading to such inability – This is, in addition,

to the requirement to establish that the husband has “sufficient

means” to maintain her, and is, however, neglecting or refusing to

do so. [Paras 12, 13] [Per Augustine George Masih, J.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – s.3 – Comparative

dissection:

Held: Under Section 3 of the 1986 Act, the entitlements or rights

of a divorced Muslim woman, wider than the ambit of maintenance,

arise as against the obligations of her former husband emanating

from their divorce – Per contra, under Section 125 of CrPC 1973,

a woman seeking maintenance has to establish that she is unable

to maintain herself – The right to seek maintenance under Section

125 of CrPC 1973 is invokable even during the sustenance of

marriage and, thereby is not contingent upon divorce – Another

distinction is related to the time period – While a petition moved

under Section 3(2) of the 1986 Act is to be decided in regard to

a husband’s liability under Section 3(1) of the 1986 Act within

a period of one month, there is no such statutory time frame

prescribed under Section 125 of CrPC 1973 – However, there is

an obligation to determine the interim maintenance within a period

of 60 days while dealing with a petition under Section 125 of CrPC

1973 – Moreover, failure to comply with such order passed under

Section 3(2) of the 1986 Act may lead to issuance of a warrant

for levying the amount of maintenance as directed under the said

order and may also sentence him to imprisonment till the payment

is made or for a term which may extend to one year – On the

other hand, equivalent non-compliance of an order passed under

Section 125 of CrPC 1973 may result in imprisonment for a term

of one month or until the payment is made. [Paras 22, 23] [Per

Augustine George Masih, J.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.127(3)(b) and s.125:

Held: The most appropriate construction of these secular provisions

of CrPC 1973 in regard to the right of maintenance is that the

legislature would never intend that an undue benefit is derived after 

1240 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the end of the marital relationship between the parties concerned –

Hence, the provision of Section 127(3)(b) of CrPC 1973 would act

in the nature of a proviso to the right provided under Section 125

of CrPC 1973 only in such a circumstance where sufficient means

of livelihood after the divorce, and the provisions contemplating

the future needs of divorced Muslim women, stands provided to

the satisfaction of the court concerned. [Para 32] [Per Augustine

George Masih, J.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – s.3 – A

divorced Muslim woman is not restricted from exercising her

independent right of maintenance under the secular provision

of Section 125 of CrPC:

Held: This Court has clarified the intent of the Parliament by giving

beneficial construction to the expressions contemplated under

Section 3 of the 1986 Act, particularly, “within iddat period” by

observing that the Parliament never sought to restrict the rights

of a divorced Muslim woman to iddat period – Rather, by virtue of

the introduction of Section 3 of the 1986 Act in this socio-beneficial

legislation, the idea was to confer the benefit of maintenance as

well as a reasonable and fair provision for the lifetime of a divorced

Muslim woman, subject to her remarriage – Adding to this wellexpounded interpretation of the provisions of the 1986 Act, it is

hereby pertinent to highlight that a divorced Muslim woman is not

restricted from exercising her independent right of maintenance

under the secular provision of Section 125 of CrPC 1973, provided

she is able to prove the requisites encompassed by the said statute.

[Para 32] [Per Augustine George Masih, J.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.127(3)(b) – The right for

seeking cancellation of an order by the husband:

Held: There shall arise a couple of peculiar circumstances while

considering the right for seeking cancellation of an order by the

husband concerned, through an application under Section 127(3)

(b) of CrPC 1973 – The first and settled circumstance is that, when

a divorced Muslim woman initially moves a petition under Section

125 of CrPC 1973 and seeks an order for maintenance as against

her former husband and only after receiving said entitlements,

she chooses to exercise her substantial rights as provided under

Section 3 of the 1986 Act, and therein, the husband is also able 

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1241

Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.

to fulfil his concerned obligations to the appropriate satisfaction

of the court, ensuring her future maintenance – It is then and

only then that the husband can invoke and press his claim under

Section 127(3)(b) of CrPC 1973 to seek cancellation of an order,

if so, passed under Section 125 of CrPC 1973, directing him to

provide maintenance to his former wife. [Para 34] [Per Augustine

George Masih, J.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – s.3 – Where a

husband has fulfilled his obligations under Section 3 of the

1986 Act – The divorced Muslim woman subsequently prefers

to invoke Section 125 of CrPC, 1973 on the ground of inability

to maintain herself:

Held: In a case where a husband has fulfilled his obligations under

Section 3 of the 1986 Act or as provided by customary or personal

law so followed, and the divorced Muslim woman subsequently

prefers to invoke Section 125 of CrPC 1973 on the ground of

inability to maintain herself, in such a factual matrix, undeniably, the

right to move under this provision is open in favour of a divorced

Muslim woman – When a husband opposes resort to Section 125

CrPC 1973, he has to establish that, (a) initial obligations under the

customary and/or personal statutory enactments as detailed earlier

stands fulfilled by him, and (b) that the wife, in the light of this, is

able to maintain herself – However, if the husband fails to sustain

the said objection(s) raised during the proceedings initiated under

Section 125 of CrPC 1973, and an order is accordingly passed, it

would not be inherently barred or liable to be cancelled through an

application under Section 127(3)(b) of CrPC 1973 – Nevertheless,

other appropriate remedies as provided under the CrPC 1973 or

any other law to that effect, shall always be open to be exercised

by such a husband to seek setting aside or appropriate modification

of an order so passed under Section 125 of CrPC 1973. [Para 35]

[Per Augustine George Masih, J.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Reasonable

substitute – Double benefit:

Held: Undoubtedly, if a “reasonable substitute” has been provided

for by the husband as per their personal or customary laws at the

time of their divorce, the maintenance provided for by a Magistrate

or a Family Court, as the case may be, under Section 125 of CrPC 

1242 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

1973, can be reduced to the extent of deemed double benefit being

given to a divorced wife. [Para 36] [Per Augustine George Masih, J.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – s.3 – Secular

provision (s.125, CrPC) and personal law (s.3 of 1986 Act)

parallelly exist in distinct domains:

Held: Equivalent rights of maintenance ascertained under both, the

secular provision of Section 125 of CrPC 1973, and the personal

law provision of Section 3 of the 1986 Act, parallelly exist in their

distinct domains and jurisprudence – Thereby, leading to their

harmonious construction and continued existence of the right

to seek maintenance for a divorced Muslim woman under the

provisions of CrPC 1973 despite the enactment of the 1986 Act.

[Para 37] [Per Augustine George Masih, J.]

Constitution of India – Arts.15(1) and (3) r/w. Art. 39(e) – Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Right to maintenance

in a constitutional context:

Held: Section 125 of the CrPC is a measure of social justice with

a view to protect women and children and is aligned to the salutary

object enshrined in Article 15(1) and (3) of the Constitution read

with Article 39(e) of the Constitution – Article 15(3) is a fundamental

right while Article 39 is a Directive Principle of State Policy that is

fundamental in the governance of the country and it is the duty of

the State to apply these principles while making the law – Thus,

the statutory right to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the

CrPC is also embedded in the text, structure and philosophy of

the Constitution – Article 15(3), read with Article 39(e) manifests

a constitutional commitment towards special measures to ensure

a life of dignity for women at all stages of their lives – This ought

to be irrespective of the faith a woman belongs to – The remedy

of maintenance is a critical source of succour for the destitute, the

deserted and the deprived sections of women. [Paras 5, 6] [Per

B.V. Nagarathna, J. (concurring)]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:

Held: Section 125 of the CrPC is independent of and in

addition to maintenance that could be awarded under the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which 

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1243

Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.

is applicable to an ‘aggrieved woman’ in a ‘shared household’ as

defined under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. [Para 7]

[Per B.V. Nagarathna, J. (concurring)]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Provision (s.125,

CrPC) is meant to achieve a social purpose:

Held: A reading of Section 125 of the CrPC would indicate that the

intention of the said provision is to provide for a speedy remedy

and prevent vagrancy by compelling the husband to support the

wife – The provision is meant to achieve a social purpose – The

reason being, that after marriage, it is the duty of the husband

to provide shelter and maintenance to the wife in the Indian

context – Particularly, if she is unable to maintain herself – If he

neglects or refuses to do so, the wife is legally entitled to enforce

the said right by filing a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC

irrespective of any other right created in favour of the wife under

any other law – Therefore, the passing of the 1986 Act, cannot

militate against or dilute the salutary nature of Section 125 of the

CrPC – The object of this provision is to save a wife including a

divorced woman from deprivation and destitution. [Para 8] [Per

B.V. Nagarathna, J. (concurring)]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.127 – Cancellation of

order of maintenance:

Held: The crux of these judgments (Fuzlunbi vs. K. Khader Vali

and Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum) is that an order

under Section 127 ought to be a reasoned order and shall only

allow an order for maintenance to be cancelled if a judge was

satisfied that the divorced woman had received a sufficient amount

of maintenance under any customary or personal law. [Para 16]

[Per B.V. Nagarathna, J. (concurring)]

Interpretation of Statutes – Non-obstante clause – Meaning of:

Held: A non-obstante clause is usually appended to a Section in

the beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the Section,

in case of a conflict, an overriding effect over the provision or

Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause – In other words, in

spite of the provision or the Act mentioned in the non-obstante

clause, the enactment following it will have its full operation or

that the provisions embraced in the non-obstante clause will not

be an impediment for the operation of the enactment – Thus, a 

1244 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

non-obstante clause is a legislative device used by a Parliament

or legislature sometimes to give an overriding effect to what has

been specified in the enacting part of a section in case of a conflict

with what is contained in the non-obstante clause as stated above.

[Para 23] [Per B.V. Nagarathna, J. (concurring)]

Interpretation of Statutes – Non-obstante clause, expression

“subject to”, expression “notwithstanding anything in any

other law”:

Held: A non-obstante clause has to be distinguished from the

expression “subject to” where the latter would convey the idea of

a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions

to which it is made subject to – The expression “notwithstanding

anything in any other law” in a Section of an Act has to be contrasted

with the use of the expression “notwithstanding anything contained

in this Act ”, which has to be construed to take away the effect

of any provision of that particular Act in which the section occurs

but it cannot take away the effect of any other law. [Para 23] [Per

B.V. Nagarathna, J. (concurring)]

Interpretation of Statutes – Non-obstante clause – Utility of:

Held: The utility of non-obstante clause is where there is a

conflict between what is stated in a provision and any other law

for the time being in force, or anything else contained in the said

enactment – As already noted, only in the case of a conflict, the

object is to give the enacting or operative portion of the section an

overriding effect, not otherwise – In other words, only in a case of

a conflict, a provision in an enactment containing a non-obstante

clause, would be given its full operation and what is stated in the

non-obstante clause will not be an impediment for the operation of

the particular provision in the enactment – This would mean that

what is stated in the non-obstante clause would not take away the

effect of any provision of the Act which follows the same. [Para

25] [Per B.V. Nagarathna J. (concurring)]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – s.3 – Section

3(1) begins with a non-obstante clause as, “notwithstanding

anything contained in any other law for the time being in

force” – Intention of Parliament:

Held: The intent of the Parliament which can be gathered from

the use of such a non-obstante clause is to enhance the right of a 

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1245

Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.

divorced Muslim woman in addition to what she would have been

entitled to under Section 125 of the CrPC – If the intent of the

Parliament was otherwise, i.e., to curtail the rights of a divorced

Muslim woman then the non-obstante clause would not have found

a place in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the 1986 Act – This is

evident from the fact that while enacting the 1986 Act, Parliament

did not simultaneously or at anytime thereafter create any bar for a

divorced Muslim woman from claiming maintenance under Section

125 of the CrPC and thereby constrain her to proceed to make a

claim only under the provisions of the 1986 Act – Neither is there

any bar, express or implied under the 1986 Act, to the effect that

a divorced Muslim woman cannot unilaterally seek maintenance

under Section 125 of the CrPC – One cannot read Section 3 of

the 1986 Act containing the non-obstante clause so as to restrict

or diminish the right to maintenance of a divorced Muslim woman

under Section 125 of the CrPC and neither is it a substitute for the

latter. [Para 28] [Per B.V. Nagarathna, J. (concurring)]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – s.4:

Held: The expression “notwithstanding anything contained in

the foregoing provisions of this Act or any other law for the time

being in force” in sub-section (1) of Section 4, is indicative of the

fact that the Magistrate can order for maintenance of a divorced

Muslim woman being entitled to maintenance as per the provisions

of the said Act – Further, sub-section (1) of Section 4 takes into

consideration the period after the iddat period while sub-section (1)

of Section 3 deals with a period which is within the iddat period –

This Section is akin to Section 125 of the CrPC for a reasonable

and fair provision of maintenance to be made. [Para 29] [Per B.V.

Nagarathna, J. (concurring)]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – ss.3, 4 – A

divorced Muslim woman is entitled to seek recourse to either

or both the provisions:

Held: The rights created under the provisions of the 1986 Act

are in addition to and not in derogation of the right created under

Section 125 of the CrPC – The non-obstante clause in Sub-section

(1) of Section 3 cannot result in Sections 3 and 4 of the 1986

Act whittling down the application of Section 125 of the CrPC 

1246 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

and allied provisions of the CrPC to a divorced Muslim woman –

Therefore, if a divorced Muslim woman approaches the Magistrate

for enforcement of her rights under Section 125 of the CrPC, she

cannot be turned away to seek relief only under Sections 3 and

4 of the 1986 Act as is sought to be contended by the appellant

herein – In other words, such a divorced Muslim woman is entitled

to seek recourse to either or both the provisions – The option lies

with such a woman – The Court would have to ultimately balance

between the amount awarded under the 1986 Act and the one to

be awarded under Section 125 of the CrPC. [Para 30] [Per B.V.

Nagarathna, J. (concurring)]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – s.3 – Where a

divorced woman maintains the children born to her:

Held: Under Section 3(1)(b) of the 1986 Act, where a divorced

woman maintains the children born to her before or after her

divorce, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance has

to be made and paid by her former husband only for a period of

two years from the respective dates of birth of such children and

not beyond the said period – However, under Section 125 of the

CrPC, there is no such restriction of maintenance to be provided

only for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth

of such children in the case of a divorced wife – The obligation

is until the children attain the age of majority and in terms of the

said Section. [Para 40 (iii)] [Per B.V. Nagarathna, J. (concurring)]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Section 125 of

the CrPC is a more beneficial provision as compared to the

provisions of the 1986 Act:

Held: What is of further significance is the fact that by Act 50

of 2001 [by Section 2(i)(a)] w.e.f. 24.09.2001, sub-section (1) of

Section 125 of the CrPC has been amended to delete the words

“not exceeding 500 rupees in the whole” – By way of this omission,

there is no upper limit fixed for payment of maintenance under

the said provision – Therefore, Section 125 of the CrPC is a more

beneficial provision as compared to the provisions of the 1986 Act

vis-à-vis a Muslim divorced woman in the context of the obligations

of a former husband and the rights of a divorced Muslim woman –

This amendment to Section 125 of the CrPC being subsequent to 

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1247

Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.

the enforcement of the 1986 Act, is so significant that it virtually

makes Section 3 of the 1986 Act very narrow and insignificant

although the expression “provision” under Section 3(1) of the 1986

Act has been broadly interpreted by this Court in Danial Latifi.

[Para 40 (v)] [Per B.V. Nagarathna, J. (concurring)]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – s.3 – Both

provisions operate in two separate fields:

Held: If a divorced Muslim woman files an application for

maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, there is no provision

for considering the same under Section 3 of the 1986 Act – The

reasons for the same are not far to see: Firstly, Section 125 of the

CrPC and Section 3(1) of the 1986 Act operate in two separate

fields – The former is a statutory right created, inter-alia, for all

divorced women, irrespective of the faith they may belong to or

follow – On the other hand, the 1986 Act is in the nature of a

personal law which applies to only divorced Muslim women who

were married under Muslim law and divorced under the said law.

[Para 40(vii)] [Per B.V. Nagarathna, J. (concurring)]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019:

Held: When divorce is void and illegal, such a Muslim woman can

seek remedy under Section 125 of the CrPC. [Para 41] [Per B.V.

Nagarathna, J. (concurring)]