The
Supreme Court, earlier this week, ruled that Muslim women are entitled to seek
alimony from their husbands under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. This verdict will put several anti-BJP parties, like the Congress,
Akhilesh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party and Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress’s
allegiance to the Constitution to test. The verdict needs to be seen in the
light of the Supreme Court’s 1985 ruling in the Shah Bano case.
After 43
years of marriage, Mohd. Ahmad Khan, an affluent lawyer from Indore divorced
his 60-year-old wife. The lower court granted Rs 20 per month to Shah Bano, who
petitioned for alimony. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had later raised the
amount of maintenance to Rs 179.20. Later, when Shah Bano filed a petition
before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Yashwantrao Chandrachud, father of
incumbent Chief Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud, raised her alimony to Rs 10,000.
The
five-judge bench, that delivered the verdict, had strongly criticized the
All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, that had supported Shah Bano’s husband in
the case. The Supreme Court had acknowledged that it was difficult to pass
legislation that brings people of different religions together when it gave its
verdict in 1985, but it said that it was crucial that the process begin
somewhere. At that time, the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board and Syed
Shahabuddin, the Janata Party leader, created a ruckus over the verdict stating
that personal laws made under the country’s constitution aren’t binding on the
Muslims.
In 1984,
the Congress had got 415 MPs elected to the Lok Sabha under the leadership of
Rajiv Gandhi. The moulvis began putting pressure on Rajiv Gandhi’s government
to overturn the Supreme Court’s verdict that was in accordance with the
constitution. Shah Bano was lured by offers like sending her children abroad
for employment and by giving her cash money in exchange for letting up on her
demand for alimony. Shah Bano was put under so much pressure that later, in a
2011 interview to the Hindustan Times, her son Jameel acknowledged that it
would have been preferable if we had lost the legal battle. You may still
access Jameel’s interview on the website of this publication. Owing to the
intense pressure from the moulvis, Shah Bano and her family were also called to
meet the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in Delhi. “Rajiv Gandhi had informed
us that there is no provision of alimony to Muslim women. I had asked Gandhi to
amend the law to include a provision for such alimony. But Rajiv Gandhi
insisted that we drop our claim for alimony,” Jameel had said in the interview.
There
were protests over Supreme Court’s decision around the nation. There was rasta
roko in Mumbai. Huge morchas were even set up in front of Shah Bano’s home in
Indore. “Our mother Shah Bano was flabbergasted by these rising demonstrations.
Also, at the time, our mother was getting on in years and would have been
barely around for five or ten more. Hence, we decided that we didn’t want to be
known as the family who forced the government and courts to go against the
Sharia Law. When our parents had got married, our mother had given 3,000 silver
coins as ‘mehar’ or dowry to our father. But our father paid only Rs 3,000 in
exchange. Also, after meeting RajivGandhi and returning to Indore, our mother
had decided that she didn’t want any alimony,” Jameel had narrated his tale in
the interview. Today, Rahul Gandhi and his gang of journalists and
intellectuals need to be reminded of this history once again.
In its
recent decision, the Supreme Court stressed the significance of Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This is significant because, in the
landmark Shah Bano case ruling, the apex court declared that Section 125 of the
CrPC is a secular provision that applies to Muslim women as well. But the
Supreme Court’s ruling was overturned by Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress government
when they introduced the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of
1986. On July 10, 2024, the Supreme Court bench decided that alimony is the
right of divorced women and not a charitable donation and that the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 in the Shah Bano case cannot be
superior to Section 125 of the CrPC, which is comprehensive and applicable to
Muslim women as well. The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board or the Owaisi
brothers and others are yet to react to this decision. Interestingly, the
Congress leadership has also not said anything on the issue up to this day.
Recently,
Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav and MPs from their I.N.D.I Alliance attempted to
demonstrate their allegiance to the Constitution by carrying copies of it in
their hands and yelling its chants as they entered the Lok Sabha. Rahul Gandhi
will now need to defend the Supreme Court’s decision, demonstrating his
allegiance to the Constitution, should there be any disagreement. Regardless of
the circumstances, the Supreme Court’s ruling will stand this time.
For the
hundreds of Muslim women who are concerned about their future following
divorce, this decision is a welcome relief. This decision must be viewed from
the perspective of Constitution’s guarantee of equality and principles of
humanity. I’m waiting to see if Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav would speak
against this ruling in support of the Jahl, among the Muslims, who may find
this judgment offensive. In short, this time Rahul, Akhilesh and the I.N.D.I
Alliance are putting their allegiance to the Constitution to the test.
(Article
Pre-Published in Times of India Online – 15 July 2024)
Keshav
Upadhye, Chief Spokesperson
No comments:
Post a Comment