S.125 CrPC | Muslim Woman Entitled To Maintenance If Unable To Maintain Herself After Divorce Despite Being Paid For Iddat Period: Patna HC

The Patna High Court in a recent ruling has reaffirmed that a Muslim woman, even after being divorced, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) if her former husband has not made sufficient provision for her livelihood during the iddat period or thereafter.

The Court observed that the existence of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, does not negate the remedies available under Section 125 Cr.PC.

Referring to Supreme Court's decisions on the subject Justice Jitendra Kumar in his order observed:

“However, for the sake of clarity regarding law on the issue, it would be suffice to say that despite the Act of 1986, a Muslim wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband during the subsistence of her marriage under Section 125 Cr.PC, if she is unable to maintain herself. Even after divorce, she is entitled to get maintenance from her former husband under Section 125 Cr.PC if she is unable to maintain herself despite payment of maintenance for iddat period or payment of Dainmehar, if the former husband has not made provisions for her life during iddat period or the provisions made during the iddat period is not sufficient to maintain herself at the time of the application under Section 125 Cr.PC. Reliance is placed on Danial Latifi case (supra) and the recent judgment of Md. Abdul Samad (supra) in which Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the subject comprehensively after scanning all the relevant judicial precedents"

The Petitioner wife was married to the respondent husband in 2007 as per Islamic rites, and they had a daughter out of the wedlock. As per the maintenance petition filed by the petitioners, after marriage, her husband and in-laws began demanding an additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000. She alleged that she was subjected to cruelty for not fulfilling the dowry demands and was eventually ousted from her matrimonial home. A criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC was also filed. She claimed that her husband owned a boutique in Mumbai earning Rs.30,000 per month, had agricultural land, and also owned another shop.

The wife filed a criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC and sought maintenance of ₹20,000 per month for herself and her daughter, alleging her husband earned ₹30,000 monthly from a boutique business in Bombay.

In response, the husband denied the allegations of cruelty and dowry, asserting instead that the wife had been living adulterously with another man. He claimed that she refused to return to the matrimonial home and that he had divorced her by triple talaq in a village panchayat in 2012, also paying her Dainmehar (amount paid by groom to wife at the time of marriage) and maintenance for the Iddat period (period/waiting period which Muslim woman observe after death of husband or divorce before they can remarry). 

The Family Court had awarded Rs. 1,500 per month to the wife from the date of its order and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation costs but made no provision for the minor daughter's maintenance.

Before the High Court, the wife challenged the inadequacy of the maintenance amount, the omission of any award for the daughter, and the direction to pay maintenance only from the date of the Family Court's order rather than from the date of the original application.

The Court noted that although the husband alleged adultery and that he had divorced his wife, there was no substantive evidence of adulterous conduct. The Court pointed out, “there is no need to go into the claim of the opposite party that he has divorced his wife/petitioner no. 1, because it is not a case of the opposite party that during the iddat period, he has made provision for the whole life of his divorced wife and she is able to maintain herself on the basis of that provision. It is also not a case of the opposite party that his divorced wife has remarried.”

“There is only allegation that petitioner no. 1 is leading an adulterous life. But such allegation is based only on suspicion. There is no cogent evidence adduced in support of his allegation. The proved fact is that his wife is living separately along with the minor daughter and she is unable to maintain herself and the minor daughter,” the Court added.

Hence, the Court said there was no doubt about the entitlement of the wife and her minor daughter to maintenance from the opposite party.

The Court held that both the wife and daughter were entitled to maintenance and taking into account the husband's dependents, including aged parents and a second wife, the Court directed him to pay Rs. 2,000 each to the wife and daughter—totalling Rs.4,000 per month. Accordingly, the petition filed by the wife and daughter was thus allowed.

Case Title: X v/s Y

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 24

Click Here To Read/Download Order