Srinagar Court Orders Husband To Pay Monthly Subsistence To Wife For Illegally Pronouncing 'Triple Talaq'

The order was passed by Zirgham Hamid, 1st Additional Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Srinagar, who held that the woman (Applicant No. 1) was illegally divorced and therefore entitled to subsistence allowance under Section 5 of the 2019 Act.

It was observed that “The word 'shall' used in Section 5 makes it mandatory for this court to grant subsistence allowance”, adding that the legislation is a social and protective law designed to shield women from economic deprivation resulting from sudden marital breakdown.

The court was hearing an application filed under Section 5 of the 2019 Act by a woman and her child (Applicants No. 1 and 2), seeking a subsistence allowance after being deserted by the husband through triple talaq.

While the talaq notice was titled Talaq-e-Ahsan, the court noted that the content of the notice reflected an instantaneous and irrevocable intent, making it fall within the prohibited form of Talaq-e-Biddat.

The Magistrate referred to an FIR registered under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which had been previously ordered by the court on the same allegations.

The court emphasized that the relief under Section 5 of the Act is distinct from regular maintenance under Section 125 CrPC or the Domestic Violence Act. “Maintenance is a matter of parity and rights. Subsistence, as the name suggests, is for mere survival,” it said,

The applicants were already receiving ₹10,000 per month as interim maintenance under a separate proceeding before the Judge (Small Causes), Srinagar. However, the court clarified that such interim maintenance does not bar a woman from claiming a subsistence allowance under the Muslim Women Act, 2019.

In the absence of specific guidelines in the Act for determining the quantum of subsistence, the court took cues from maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and the Domestic Violence Act. The woman, a housewife, submitted an Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities, disclosing that her husband earned approximately ₹3.68 lakhs per month (equivalent to 16,000 Saudi Riyals).

The child (Applicant No. 2) was also stated to be suffering from a medical condition requiring regular treatment.

Taking these factors into consideration, the court held that ₹7,000 per month would be just, fair and reasonable for the subsistence of the woman and her dependent child.

APPEARANCE:

Mueed Ul Islam Shah, Mufti Muhtashim, Mohd. Khalid Shah, M. Haseeb Shah Banday, Faizan Zahoor & Shahrukh Ishaq (Advocates) for Petitioners

Case-Title: Toiba Farooq & Anr vs Nadeem Bashir Paracha , 2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order