Yami Gautam and Emraan Hashmi starrer 'Haq' has run into legal trouble. The movie inspired by the 1985 Shah Bano case is set to hit the theatres on November 7. But, Shah Bano's daughter Sidduiqa Begum is suing the makers for encroaching on her personality rights.
But the Shah Bano case is not just the story of a Muslim woman's fight for justice. It's about a landmark case that redefined Muslim personal law, and put women's rights over religious customs.
The case pertains to a maintenance lawsuit filed by Shah Bano Begum, a mother of 5 from Indore, against her ex-husband and advocate Mohammed Ahmad Khan.
The Shah Bano case
Khan had divorced Bano in 1978 after 43 years of marriage, but stopped paying maintenance after a few months.
Shah Bano filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), asking that he continue to pay maintenance.
This is a secular provision that obligates a person with sufficient means to provide maintenance to the spouse, who is unable to maintain herself.
Khan contested the petition citing Muslim personal law. He argued that he had to pay maintenance only during the iddat — a three month period after divorce, during which a Muslim woman cannot remarry.
But the court directed Khan to pay a nominal Rs 25 per month. On appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court increased the amount to Rs 179 per month.
Khan then moved the Supreme Court.
On April 23, 1985, a Constitution Bench, headed by then Chief Justice YV Chandrachud, upheld the High Court order. The unanimous verdict held that divorced Muslim women were entitled to claim maintenance even after iddat.
Muslim groups, led by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, saw the judgment as an attack on their religious identity and an encroachment on Muslim personal law.
The backlash prompted the then Rajiv Gandhi government to pass a legislation to nullify the verdict. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986 requires the husband to pay “a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance" to his ex-wife "within the iddat period.”
SC verdict a game-changer
In 2001, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the law, but with an interesting interpretation.
Instead of a small monthly payment during iddat, the court interpreted it as a large one-time payment during the period. That is, the husband had to make a one-time payment large enough to provide for the ex-wife for the rest of her life. And he had to pay this during iddat.
That's how the Shah Bano case became a game-changer for divorced Muslim women in India.
