{"id":2980,"date":"2025-01-03T13:08:51","date_gmt":"2025-01-03T13:08:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=2980"},"modified":"2025-03-12T16:17:10","modified_gmt":"2025-03-12T10:47:10","slug":"mohd-ahmed-khan-v-shah-bano-begum-1985-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/mohd-ahmed-khan-v-shah-bano-begum-1985-case-summary\/","title":{"rendered":"Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum 1985 (Case Summary)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"2980\" class=\"elementor elementor-2980\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-917020f elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no\" data-id=\"917020f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-5aa9190\" data-id=\"5aa9190\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-0360c7f elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no\" data-id=\"0360c7f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-f71d46a\" data-id=\"f71d46a\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d818b36 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d818b36\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\"> Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum AIR 1985 SC 945 (Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e246dd3 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"e246dd3\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1312\" height=\"736\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-court-room-with-a-gavel-and_UtfiBwi8RJ6pCumdkVEX5w_85ZpGWULSeuC0MAeuRdYuw1.jpg\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-3085\" alt=\"Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum AIR 1985 SC 945\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-court-room-with-a-gavel-and_UtfiBwi8RJ6pCumdkVEX5w_85ZpGWULSeuC0MAeuRdYuw1.jpg 1312w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-court-room-with-a-gavel-and_UtfiBwi8RJ6pCumdkVEX5w_85ZpGWULSeuC0MAeuRdYuw1-300x168.jpg 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-court-room-with-a-gavel-and_UtfiBwi8RJ6pCumdkVEX5w_85ZpGWULSeuC0MAeuRdYuw1-1024x574.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-court-room-with-a-gavel-and_UtfiBwi8RJ6pCumdkVEX5w_85ZpGWULSeuC0MAeuRdYuw1-150x84.jpg 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-court-room-with-a-gavel-and_UtfiBwi8RJ6pCumdkVEX5w_85ZpGWULSeuC0MAeuRdYuw1-768x431.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1312px) 100vw, 1312px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-0d9ee86 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"0d9ee86\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In the landmark case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of maintenance rights for divorced Muslim women under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This judgment is significant because it upheld the right of a Muslim woman to claim maintenance from her husband beyond the period of Iddat, sparking a nationwide debate on personal law versus the constitutional right to equality.<\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/mohd-ahmed-khan-v-shah-bano-begum-1985-case-summary\/#Facts_of_Mohd_Ahmed_Khan_v_Shah_Bano_Begum\" >Facts of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/mohd-ahmed-khan-v-shah-bano-begum-1985-case-summary\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/mohd-ahmed-khan-v-shah-bano-begum-1985-case-summary\/#Subordinate_Court_Judgment\" >Subordinate Court Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/mohd-ahmed-khan-v-shah-bano-begum-1985-case-summary\/#Judgment_of_Mohd_Ahmed_Khan_v_Shah_Bano_Begum\" >Judgment of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum\u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/mohd-ahmed-khan-v-shah-bano-begum-1985-case-summary\/#Click_here_to_Read_the_Judgment\" >Click here to Read the Judgment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Mohd_Ahmed_Khan_v_Shah_Bano_Begum\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Shah Bano Begum, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, was divorced by her husband, Mohd. Ahmed Khan, who had refused to pay her maintenance beyond the Iddat period (three months post-divorce).<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Shah Bano filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC, seeking maintenance from her former husband, claiming that she was unable to support herself financially.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mohd. Ahmed Khan argued that under Muslim personal law, his obligation to pay maintenance ended after the Iddat period, and that he was not required to provide financial support beyond that.<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether Section 125 CrPC, which mandates maintenance for wives, children, and parents, applies to divorced Muslim women?<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether Muslim personal law overrides the secular provisions of Section 125 CrPC, particularly with respect to a Muslim woman\u2019s right to maintenance after the Iddat period?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subordinate_Court_Judgment\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Subordinate Court Judgment<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The trial court awarded maintenance to Shah Bano under Section 125 CrPC, rejecting the husband\u2019s claim that his liability ended after the Iddat period.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the trial court\u2019s decision, affirming that Section 125 CrPC was applicable to Shah Bano\u2019s case.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Mohd_Ahmed_Khan_v_Shah_Bano_Begum\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 125 CrPC, which provides maintenance to wives, children, and parents, and considered its applicability to Muslim women.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court held that Section 125 CrPC is a secular law that applies to all citizens, irrespective of religion. It stated that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance from her former husband if she is unable to support herself, even after the Iddat period. The Court noted that the husband&#8217;s liability under CrPC is independent of personal law, as Section 125 aims to protect dependents from destitution.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano, directing Mohd. Ahmed Khan to pay for her maintenance. The Court held that personal laws cannot override statutory provisions aimed at securing basic human rights like maintenance. It emphasized that Section 125 CrPC takes precedence over personal law to ensure that divorced women, regardless of their religion, are not left destitute. This judgment triggered significant controversy, ultimately leading to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986\u200b.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Click_here_to_Read_the_Judgment\"><\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Mohd.-Ahmed-Khan-v.-Shah-Bano-Begum-AIR-1985-SC-945.pdf\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Click here to Read the Judgment<\/strong><\/span><\/a><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-8af0c99 elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"8af0c99\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Mohd.-Ahmed-Khan-v.-Shah-Bano-Begum-AIR-1985-SC-945.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the landmark case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of maintenance rights for divorced Muslim women under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":3085,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[67,71,12],"class_list":["post-2980","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-family-law","tag-hindu-marriage-act-1955","tag-maintenance","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2980","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2980"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2980\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4371,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2980\/revisions\/4371"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3085"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2980"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}