{"id":735,"date":"2024-10-20T16:56:58","date_gmt":"2024-10-20T16:56:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=735"},"modified":"2025-03-23T19:48:39","modified_gmt":"2025-03-23T14:18:39","slug":"danial-latifi-anr-v-union-of-india-air-2001-sc-3958-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/danial-latifi-anr-v-union-of-india-air-2001-sc-3958-case-summary\/","title":{"rendered":"Danial Latifi &#038; Anr. v. Union of India (2001) (Case Summary)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"735\" class=\"elementor elementor-735\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-6ec541cd 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=\"6ec541cd\" 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-2f8b913c\" data-id=\"2f8b913c\" 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-3b574a6f 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=\"3b574a6f\" 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-6ff92099\" data-id=\"6ff92099\" 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-4de1459f elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"4de1459f\" 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\">Danial Latifi &amp; Anr. v. Union of India 2001 (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-650af1a1 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"650af1a1\" 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\/2024\/10\/a-poster-of-the-case-danial-latifi-vs-union-of-ind-4o9CU6Q8SY-uXGlxJQHo-A-ZKQNeYwrS-11HZ8BlKF5Q.jpeg\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-825\" alt=\"Danial Latifi &amp; Anr. v. Union of India\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/a-poster-of-the-case-danial-latifi-vs-union-of-ind-4o9CU6Q8SY-uXGlxJQHo-A-ZKQNeYwrS-11HZ8BlKF5Q.jpeg 1312w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/a-poster-of-the-case-danial-latifi-vs-union-of-ind-4o9CU6Q8SY-uXGlxJQHo-A-ZKQNeYwrS-11HZ8BlKF5Q-300x168.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/a-poster-of-the-case-danial-latifi-vs-union-of-ind-4o9CU6Q8SY-uXGlxJQHo-A-ZKQNeYwrS-11HZ8BlKF5Q-1024x574.jpeg 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/a-poster-of-the-case-danial-latifi-vs-union-of-ind-4o9CU6Q8SY-uXGlxJQHo-A-ZKQNeYwrS-11HZ8BlKF5Q-768x431.jpeg 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-685aca34 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"685aca34\" 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;\">The case of Danial Latifi &amp; Anr. v. Union of India revolved around the constitutional validity and interpretation of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. This legislation was introduced following the controversial Shah Bano case in 1985, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of granting maintenance to a divorced Muslim woman under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Act sought to address the backlash from the Muslim community and override the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Shah Bano by mandating that maintenance for divorced Muslim women be determined according to Islamic law.<\/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\/danial-latifi-anr-v-union-of-india-air-2001-sc-3958-case-summary\/#Facts_of_Danial_Latifi_Anr_v_Union_of_India\" >Facts of Danial Latifi &amp; Anr. v. Union of India<\/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\/danial-latifi-anr-v-union-of-india-air-2001-sc-3958-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\/danial-latifi-anr-v-union-of-india-air-2001-sc-3958-case-summary\/#Judgment_of_Judgment_of_Danial_Latifi_Anr_v_Union_of_India\" >Judgment of Judgment of Danial Latifi &amp; Anr. v. Union of India<\/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\/danial-latifi-anr-v-union-of-india-air-2001-sc-3958-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_Danial_Latifi_Anr_v_Union_of_India\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Danial Latifi &amp; Anr. v. Union of India<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In 1985, Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, was awarded maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, which applies to all citizens, irrespective of religion. This ruling was seen as a violation of Islamic law, leading to widespread protests within the Muslim community.<\/span><\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In response to the Shah Bano judgment, the Indian Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which provided that the maintenance of a divorced Muslim woman should be in accordance with Islamic law and not under CrPC.<\/span><\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Danial Latifi, a senior advocate and jurist, along with other petitioners, challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing that it discriminated against Muslim women by denying them the same maintenance rights as women of other religions under Section 125 CrPC. The petitioners claimed that the Act violated the fundamental rights of Muslim women under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India.<\/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;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 violated the fundamental rights of equality, non-discrimination, and personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India?<\/span><\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the Act provided adequate maintenance for divorced Muslim women and safeguarded their constitutional rights?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Judgment_of_Danial_Latifi_Anr_v_Union_of_India\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of Judgment of Danial Latifi &amp; Anr. v. Union of India<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court examined the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and interpreted its provisions in light of the constitutional guarantees of equality, non-discrimination, and personal liberty.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act but provided an interpretation that ensure fairness and justice for divorced Muslim women. The Court ruled that the phrase \u201creasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband\u201d in Section 3(1)(a) of the Act should be understood to mean that the maintenance provided should cover the woman\u2019s needs for her entire life, or until she remarries. This interpretation ensured that the maintenance was not limited to the Iddat period, as initially perceived.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court upheld the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 but ensured that its provisions were interpreted to protect the rights of divorced Muslim women. The judgment reinforced the idea that the maintenance paid should be sufficient for the woman\u2019s lifetime or until remarriage, aligning the Act with the constitutional guarantees of equality and justice under Articles 14, 15, and 21. This ruling harmonized personal laws with the Constitution and ensured that divorced Muslim women were treated fairly and justly in terms of maintenance.<\/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\/Danial-laatifi-vs-Union-of-India-Judgment.pdf\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Click here to read the Judgment <\/b><\/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-a915bfb elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"a915bfb\" 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\/Danial-laatifi-vs-Union-of-India-Judgment.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>The case of Danial Latifi &#038; Anr. v. Union of India revolved around the constitutional validity and interpretation of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":825,"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":[16,13,12],"class_list":["post-735","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-family-law","tag-article-14","tag-article-21","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/735","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=735"}],"version-history":[{"count":47,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/735\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5232,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/735\/revisions\/5232"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/825"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}