Another shah bano case:HC judgment on ‘talaq’ raises eyebrows in Kashmir

[Ticker]

Aadami ka kya bharosa................

hein ............

 

[ajtr]

hein ............

really....................most of the time(99.9%) divorces are initiated by men only.women seek divorce only in rarest cases when domestic abuse become unbearable.

 

[INDIC]

Aadami ka kya bharosa................

Shah Bano case gives hope to Muslim women - India News - IBNLive

The Hindu : The Shah Bano legacy

Even her husband was like her, what's your point.In old age couple don't like loneliness. Didn't you watch Baghwan.

 

[Sashan]

Divorce in any case is not beneficial to any woman unless she is independent financially or if she suffers domestic abuse from husband then divorce is the last resort.problem is one of maintenance from husband.Thats why there is need for uniform divorce law.

That is where the problem lies. When I read the judgement except for making the divorce difficult for men, the court has only provided a lip service in stating that women are equal to men but due to the financial dependency of the South Asian women(it goes for all religions' women), they will not be treated as equals by the chauvinistic south asian men.

 

[ajtr]

Even her husband was like her, what's your point.In old age couple don't like loneliness. Didn't you watch Baghwan.

didnt you watch Nishabd....

That is where the problem lies. When I read the judgement except for making the divorce difficult for men, the court has only provided a lip service in stating that women are equal to men but due to the financial dependency of the South Asian women(it goes for all religions' women), they will not be treated as equals by the chauvinistic south asian men.

controversial subject religion is hence everyone tries to skip and just do lipservice. What one need is strong willed got/judiciary which can impose such uniform civil code.

 

[Ticker]

Did shah bano go to the court at the age of above 60 or was it that the Indian court gave a decision 30 years after the first hearing.

 

[shelly]

To all the unbelievers-

payment of maintenance in Islamic system is covered by "Mahr"-
which btw is an obligation before the "Nikkah" (Marriage)- most of the muslim people of SA mainly Pakistan- Bangladesh- India does not follow this obligation- i say its "cultural" belonging to specific region not religion- it has nothing to do with Religion-

In other Muslim countries- such as Saudi Arabia- other Gulf Countries- Malaysia etc- Deciding "Mahr" before marriage is taken as an obligation-

So i agree with Splurgenxs here- fcuk the Islamist mullahs of SA-

thats fine.... but we cant have mixed laws in a country. it should be uniform. clearly we are not islamic country so sharia code is useless to us. indian penal code is paramount for all people in india.

 

[Leader]

Thats where the problem lies.If woman is a housewife she cant go out and earn for herself.What i think Maintenance is must till she gets remarried.In shah bano's case she was 60 yrs old woman who cant even remarry or seek employment.in such a case she deserves maintenance for life.

It was a debate in USA that the women who work in house should be paid by the government, since they look after the citizen of the state., in my opinion a muslim state should pay to the house wives...thats a freaking full time job and it takes a hell out of a woman's life to raise children, but then we should also consider aspects like it may lead to materialize relations which should only be cherished with love and care.

The principle is that once the Idat ends the legal relationship that carries duties and rights end with it... however, the legal relationship between the divorced woman and state is still there, therefore, the court should direct govt to allocate a stipend in such cases.

on the other hand second marriage in Islam is advised with prostitute who wants to quit, elderly ladies, handicapped, and those with children especially girls so that the burden is off the shoulders of such ladies... this our society doesnot allow, so I think its local government's responsibility to look after in such cases.

 

[ajtr]

It was a debate in USA that the women who work in house should be paid by the government, since they look after the citizen of the state., in my opinion a muslim state should pay to the house wives...thats a freaking full time job and it takes a hell out of a woman's life to raise children, but then we should also consider aspects like it may lead to materialize relations which should only be cherished with love and care.

The principle is that once the Idat ends the legal relationship that carries duties and rights end with it... however, the legal relationship between the divorced woman and state is still there, therefore, the court should direct govt to allocate a stipend in such cases.

on the other hand second marriage in Islam is advised with prostitute who wants to quit, elderly ladies, handicapped, and those with children especially girls so that the burden is off the shoulders of such ladies... this our society doesnot allow, so I think its local government's responsibility to look after in such cases.

Maintenance chahe state de ya hubsband kisi ko to dena hai.Its no way you can leave a divorced female on her fate in a society where majority are housewives and not financially independent.

 

[ajtr]

Did shah bano go to the court at the age of above 60 or was it that the Indian court gave a decision 30 years after the first hearing.

she was 60 yrs when she went to court asking for maintenance and court ruled in her favour.But then iss case ke baad All India Muslim Personal Law Board walon jo hungama machaya to govt. ko separate law pass karna pada.

The Congress Government, panicky in an election year, caved in under the pressure of the orthodoxy. It enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The most controversial provision of the Act was that it gave a Muslim woman the right to maintenance for the period of iddat (about three months) after the divorce, and shifted the onus of maintaining her to her relatives or the Wakf Board. The Act was seen as discriminatory as it denied divorced Muslim women the right to basic maintenance which women of other faiths had recourse to under secular law.

 

[INDIC]

didnt you watch Nishabd....

Such things are rare in real life.

 

[ajtr]

Such things are rare in real life.

Rare doesnt mean that it dont happen.Even in 1970s who could have expected shah bano going to court for maintenance.But it did happen.

 

[Wickerman]

1. Revoke any law based on religion. A complete separation of religion and state. ONE law, ONE secular law for everybody.

2. Revoke all religious personal laws and cease to institutionally recognize Sharia. Similarly revoke Cow slaughter laws, which are also based on religion and totally ridiculous. All religions will only have ONE law to follow. If they dont wanna follow, they should either emmigrate to wherever they want to, or live their lives in prison.

3. Guarantee religious freedom, and reform affirmative action to be based on financial strength rather than religion or caste.

4. Reform existing divorce laws to include cases of irreconcilable differences etc as valid reasons for divorce. This will ensure more freedom/rights for women and no Talaqs or whatever.

This will ensure modern laws and regulations, no conflicts because of religion as well as guarantee religious and personal freedom for all.

 

[Sashan]

didnt you watch Nishabd....

controversial subject religion is hence everyone tries to skip and just do lipservice. What one need is strong willed got/judiciary which can impose such uniform civil code.

Hopefully someone turns up.

Having stated that, do you know the court had diluted the 1986 muslim women act(passed as a result of Shah Bano case) in 2001 just short of striking out the 1986 act as illegal?



(10) Daniel Latifi v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3958FACTS IN BRIEF :-

In this case, the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights onDivorce) Act, 1986 was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Act was passed to appease a particularsection of the society and with the intention of making the decision in case of

Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. ShahBano Begum

ineffective.In the

Shahbano’s case

, the husband had appealed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh HighCourt which had directed him to pay to his divorced wife Rs. 179/- per month, enhancing the paltry sumof Rs. 25 per month originally granted by the Magistrate. The parties had been married for 43 yearsbefore the ill and elderly wife had been thrown out of her husband's residence. For about two years thehusband paid maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. When these payments ceasedshe petitioned under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The husband immediatelydissolved the marriage by pronouncing a triple

talaq

. He paid Rs.3000/- as deferred

mahr

and a furthersum to cover arrears of maintenance and maintenance for the

iddat

period and he sought thereafter tohave the petition dismissed on the ground that she had received the amount due to her on divorce underthe Musilm law applicable to the parties. The important feature of the case was that wife had managedthe matrimonial home for more than 40 years and had borne and reared five children and was incapableof taking up any career or independently supporting herself at that late state of her life - remarriage wasimpossibility in that case. The husband, a successful Advocate with an approximate income of Rs. 5,000/-per month provided Rs. 200/- per month to the divorced wife, who had shared his life for half a centuryand mothered his five children and was in desperate need of money to survive.

ARGUMENTS:-

T he petitioner argued, (a) that the rationale of Section 125 Cr.P.C. was to offset or meet asituation wherein a divorced wife was likely to be led into destitution or vagrancy. It was urged that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was enacted to prevent such a situation in furtherance of the concept of social justiceembodied in Article 21 of the Constitution. (b) That the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. being to avoid vagrancy, the remedy thereunder could not be denied to a Muslim woman otherwise it would amount toviolation of not only equality before law but also equal protection of laws (Article 14) and inherent infringement of Article 21 as well as basic human values. (c) That the Act was un-Islamic,unconstitutional and had the potential of suffocating the Muslim women while also undermining thesecular character, which was the basic feature of the Constitution. And thus there was no rhyme orreason to deprive the Muslim women from the applicability of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C.Defending the validity of the enactment, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that (a) if thelegislature, as a matter of policy, wanted to apply Section 125 Cr.P.C. to Muslims, it also meant that thesame legislature could, by necessary implication, withdraw such an application of the Act and make someother provision in that regard. (b) Parliament could amend Section 125 Cr.P.C. so as to exclude it application and apply personal law instead. (c) That the policy of Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not to create aright of maintenance

dehors

the personal law and therefore could not stand in the way of the Act.

JUDGMENT:-

U pholding the validity of the Act, the Supreme Court held as follows;

o A Muslim husband is liable to make reasonable and fair provision for the future of thedivorced wife which obviously includes her maintenance as well. Such a reasonable and fairprovision extending beyond the iddat period must be made by the husband within the iddat period in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act,

o Liability of Muslim husband to his divorced wife arising under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act topay maintenance is not confined to
iddat period,

o A divorced Muslim woman who has not remarried and who is not able to maintain herself after iddat period can proceed as provided under Section 4 of the Act against her relativeswho are liable to maintain her in proportion to the properties which they inherit on herdeath according to Muslim law from such divorced woman including her children andparents. If any of the relatives being unable to pay maintenance, the Magistrate may direct the State Wakf Board established under the Act to pay such maintenance.
o The provisions of the Act do not offend Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

FOR COMMON MAN:-

It is unfortunate to note that the Court did not strike down the Act which purportsto exclude Muslim women in particular from the beneficial treatment of Section 125. The legislature toappease the Muslim gentry may have passed the Act on political consideration but that same hasrendered an indirect classification of people of the basis of religion, which is against the fundamentalaspect of Secularism which we have adopted in out Constitution.

 

[Leader]

Maintenance chahe state de ya hubsband kisi ko to dena hai.Its no way you can leave a divorced female on her fate in a society where majority are housewives and not financially independent.

After divorce/idat period husband raha hi nahi tou maintenance kesi? waise it compulsory to give maintenance while in a legal relationship... even maintenance can be claimed through local council/Qazi.

lakin apko bhi pata hai, hamari society mein asa kuch hota hi nahi...

P.S. Arab society mien phir bhi implementation hai kuch had taj...