This article is written by Ambar Chaurasia. This article discusses in detail the background of Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum & Anr. and the principle of unlawful conjunction under Muslim personal law, the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments of the parties, the laws involved, while discussing the judgement and doing an analysis of the case.

Introduction

India, being a secular country, has a system of personal laws that are specific to different religious communities and include autonomy in matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and guardianship. The personal laws of different religions are based on their respective religious beliefs and practices. One such dimension of personal laws in India is Muslim personal law, which lays down the legal framework that governs personal and family matters for Muslims according to Islamic law or Sharia. Muslim personal law in India has historical roots dating back to the medieval period and the Mugal era thereafter. Muslim law in India is primarily based on the Hanafi school of Islamic Jurisprudence, which derives its principles from the Holy Quran and Hadith, i.e., the sayings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad and interpretations by Islamic scholars. 

A misconception about Muslim law, often held by those unfamiliar with its nuances, is that men are allowed to marry up to four marriages (Nikah); however, this is just a fragment of the whole story. While it is true that Islamic law permits a man to have up to four wives, this allowance is not a blanket licence and comes with stringent conditions.

Download Now

It can be said that such an allowance is rather a complex and conditional provision that demands exceptional moral integrity and responsibility from the individual. 

One such condition is that a Muslim cannot marry another Muslim if he/she comes under a prohibited degree of relationship, i.e., marriage between individuals who are closely related by blood or by other relationships such as affinity (through marriage) or fosterage (through  breastfeeding) or are related by consanguinity (blood relationship), such as father and daughter, mother and son, siblings or other close relatives like uncle and niece, aunt and nephew.

However, if a marriage takes place within a prohibited degree of relationship, will it be regarded as void ab initio, i.e., void since its inception or will it be regarded as an irregular marriage, as both of them have different legal consequences.

Another question which can arise is, can Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code be invoked in such cases despite the availability of specific provisions for maintenance under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

In this case, Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum & Anr. (2008), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed these issues and reinforced the legal interpretation that divorced Muslim women can seek maintenance under both the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case revolved around whether a divorced Muslim woman could claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The appellant, Chand Patel, contended that this Act exclusively governed such matters, thereby excluding Section 125 CrPC. 

However, the Supreme Court upheld Bismillah Begum’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, emphasising that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, did not override the general provisions of CrPC and aimed to ensure broader protection for divorced Muslim women. This judgement reinforced the principles of social justice and gender equality, significantly enhancing the legal rights and financial security of Muslim women in India.

Details of the case

Case name: Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum & Anr.

Case no.: Appeal (crl.) 488 of 2008

Case type: Criminal appeal

Name of the court: Supreme Court 

Name of the parties: 

Petitioner: Chand Patel

Respondent: Bismillah Begum and Anr

Citation: (2008), 4 SCC 774

Date of judgement: 14.03.2008

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and J.M. Panchal, J.

Laws involved in the case: Section 125 CrPC, Principles of Muslim Personal law

Unlawful conjunction (jama bain-al-mahramain)

Under Muslim personal law, unlawful conjunctions refer to certain family relationships that are prohibited from marrying each other due to being too closely related by blood (consanguinity), affinity (through marriage), or fosterage (through breastfeeding). The restrictions on marriage based on these relationships are derived from traditional Islamic jurisprudence, which outlines the relationships that are considered impermissible for marriage. Muslim personal law constitutes various unlawful conjunctions like marrying someone who is already married, marrying a woman during her iddah period, marrying a non-Muslim without conversion, forced marriage or marrying without consent, marriage during Hajj and one of such conjunctions is marrying within prohibited degrees of kinship/relationship. However, such restrictions are not as simple as they seem; a Muslim man cannot only marry within the prohibited degree of relationship, i.e., to whom he is related closely but he is also restricted from marrying those females who are also within the prohibited degree of relationship of his wife. To better understand it, let us take an example.

Illustration: X, a Muslim man, is married to Y, a Muslim woman and while their marriage is subsisting, he gets married to Z. Now here, legal fiction will be created, Y will be deemed to be a Muslim man and relations between Y and Z will be construed.  If Y and Z fall within the prohibited degree of relationship, then it will be deemed that X and Z will also fall under the prohibited degree, and such marriage would not be permissible between X and Z.

Void and irregular marriages under Muslim personal law

Muslim law differentiates between void and irregular marriages. A void marriage is one that is void from its very inception (batil), while an irregular (fasid) marriage is one that is capable of becoming a valid marriage if the irregularity is removed. The distinction has been categorically dealt with in Mulla’s “Principles of Mohammedan Law” in paragraphs 260 to 264. Paragraphs 260-262 deal with the complete prohibition of marriage and any marriage constituted in violation of such provision will be rendered void, while paragraph 263 deals with unlawful conjunction and states that “A man may not have at the same time two wives who are so related to each other by consanguinity, affinity and fosterage that if either of them had been a male, they could not lawfully intermarried, as, for instance, two sisters or an aunt and niece. The bar of unlawful conjunction renders a marriage irregular, not void.”

Facts of Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum & Anr.

This case involved the maintenance rights of one Bismillah Begum and her minor daughter Taheman Bano, born out of wedlock, as respondents nos. 1 and 2, respectively. Bismillah Begum filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the appellant, Chand Patel, in the court of the judicial magistrate, first class, Chincholi. 

In the petition for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, the petitioner claimed the following things:

  • She was the legally wedded wife of the appellant for the past 8 years and a Nikahnam was also executed, but the same has been misplaced by her and she categorically admitted that the appellant was already married to her elder sister, Mashaq Bee, and the appellant, with the consent of her first wife, married respondent no.1 and all three of them have been living under the same roof since then.
  • With the passage of time, things started deteriorating between them, and the respondent filed a petition for maintenance allowance of Rs. 1000 per month for herself and Rs. 1000 for her minor daughter. The Defendant (appellant herein) denied that he had married Respondent No. 1. His defence was rejected by the trial court and the trial court held that Respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the appellant. The court also found that the appellant had neglected to maintain both respondents and directed the appellant to pay a monthly sum of Rs. 1000 to Respondent No. 1 in lieu of her life support maintenance and Rs. 1000 to Respondent No. 2 till she attained adulthood.
  • The aforesaid order was challenged by way of a revision petition in the court of district and session judge Gulbarg. The revisional court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the trial court’s decision while stating that the personal law of the parties cannot take away or abridge the right of a Muslim woman to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC while relying upon the judgement of Lnanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal (1969). In which it was made clear that  Section 488 of the old Code (The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898), which is similar to Section 125 CrPC, is a religion neutral provision and that it applies to all religions irrespective of what is stated in their personal laws. 
  • The revisional court also opined that the magistrate, while deciding an application under Section 125 CrPC, cannot go into the validity of the marriage and the petitioner (Chand Patel) is under an obligation to maintain his wife and his daughter till their marriage is declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction. The applicant further filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Karnataka High Court and after considering the orders of both the trial court and the revisional Court, the Court dismissed the application by stating that it has no merits. Hence, this petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 

Issues raised

  1. Whether a marriage solemnised between a Muslim man and his wife’s sister, while the earlier marriage is still subsisting, is legal, irregular or void ?
  2. Whether Section 125 CrPC is applicable to Muslims?

Arguments of the parties

Appellant

The appellant, Chand Patel, raised several contentions similar to those raised before trial in the revisional and Karnataka High Courts. The following are the major contentions raised by the appellant.

Firstly, it was urged that under Muslim personal law, “unlawful conjunction” is specifically prohibited and a Muslim man cannot marry his wife’s sister in his wife’s lifetime. In this case, since the initial stage, the appellant has denied the marriage between him and his wife’s younger sister and the appellant is also disputing the paternity of Respondent No. 2. 

The appellant also submitted that an unlawful conjunction is prohibited under Islam; hence, a marriage between such persons falling into an unlawful conjunction is void under Islam, and since it has been void since its inception, no rights can be conferred upon both respondents.

In support of his contentions, the appellant placed reliance on Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga (2004), a judgement of the Supreme Court. While the case was principally based on the principles of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the facts were similar to this case to some extent.

In the aforementioned case, the first marriage of the wife was not dissolved by a competent court but a Chhor Chithhi (document for dissolution of marriage) was executed between the wife and her first husband as per the customs of the Maheshwari community and it was also registered.

Further, the lady married again and a daughter was born out of her second marriage. Differences arose between the couple and the lady filed for judicial separation and a maintenance of Rs. 3000 per month, while the second husband contended that his marriage was null and void by filing a counter-petition on the ground that his wife’s earlier marriage had not been dissolved in accordance with the law.

Secondly, the appellant contended that the legislature, while drafting Section 125 CrPC, intended to include a woman not lawfully married and that the scope and ambit of Section 125 cannot be enlarged by including an unlawfully married woman in the expression “WIFE,” and the appellant placed his reliance on Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujurat (2005).

The appellant, on the basis of his above contentions, submitted that the decision of trial, revisional and the High Court’s erroneous marriage should be declared void and hence the respondents have no right to claim maintenance.

Respondents

Respondents, while supporting the decision of the High Court categorically, stated that while deciding an application under Section 125 CrPC, there is no need for the Courts to delve into the validity of a marriage and the Court can pass an order for maintenance in favour of the wife. If a prima facie case is made out, i.e., if the marriage looks valid from the outset, the Court need not adjudicate upon the validity of such a marriage.

Respondents also contended that the fact that the parties are prohibited from marrying under unlawful conjunction as per the principles of Islam was known to both parties and the appellant, despite knowing the whole scenario, married his wife’s younger sister and is now trying to evade his responsibility to maintain the respondents by taking recourse to technicality. A marriage that is not yet declared void by a court of competency cannot be held void and such marriage and the rights arising out of such marriage shall subsist.

Judgement in Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum and Anr. (2008)

Before the verdict of the Supreme Court, the following were the verdicts of the earlier Courts

  • Trial Court’s verdict

The Trial Court came to the finding that the appellant had neglected the respondents  and had failed to maintain them despite being obliged to do the same. On the face of the suit, the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 are married and Respondent No. 2 is his daughter. The Trial Court also directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs 1000 each to both Respondents.

  • Revisional Court’s verdict  

The Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the trial court’s decision while stating that the personal law of the parties cannot take away or abridge the right of a Muslim woman to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, relying upon the judgement of Lnanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal. 

In which it was made clear that Section 125 CrPC is a religion neutral provision and that it applies to all religions irrespective of what is stated in their personal laws. The Revisional Court further noted that the magistrate cannot consider the validity of the marriage when making a decision on an application under Section 125 CrPC. 

Accordingly, the petitioner, Chand Patel, is required to provide for his wife and daughter until a court of competent jurisdiction declares their marriage to be void.

  • High Court’s verdict

The Hon’ble High Court agreed with the decision of the Revisional and Trial Court, dismissed the petition filed by appellant and held that Chand Patel was liable to maintain both respondents.  

The Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered its verdict in the following manner

The Supreme Court stated that the answer to the question, whether the respondents herein are entitled to maintenance or not, will solely depend on the status of marriage, i.e., whether the marriage between the appellant and respondent no. 1 is void or irregular, as in both cases legal consequences will be different, as in cases of void marriage, respondent no. 1 will not be entitled to get maintenance, while in cases of an irregular marriage, a marriage subsists until rendered void by a court of competence, hence respondents will be entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The Court opined that under Muslim personal law, there has been a clear distinction laid down in respect of void and irregular marriages.  As per Mulla’s Principle of Mohammedan Law, it has been clearly laid down that a marriage that falls under unlawful conjunction is an irregular marriage and not a void one, which has been stated in Para 263 of  Mulla’s Principle of Mohammedan Law. The Court further discussed the previous judicial views on this issue, as it has been considered by various High Courts from time to time. 

The very first time this principle was considered by a Court of Law was in the Calcutta High Court way back in 1895, when the Calcutta High Court held in Karimunnissa Khatooon v. Aizunnissa Khatoon (1895), in which it was held that a marriage between a Muslim man and his wife’s sister while the first marriage is still subsisting will be considered void from its very beginning. However, in 1917, Bombay High Court, in Tajbi v. Mowla Khan (1917), while mostly relying upon Fatawa-i-Alamgiri, a book written by Aurangzeb on Islamic law, held a marriage between a Muslim man and his wife’s sister to be irregular and not void. The court reasoned that a marriage that is able to become valid by a subsequent event, such as the death of the first wife or the pronouncing of talaq by the husband, cannot be rendered void and hence declined to accept the law laid down in the earlier judgement of the Calcutta High Court.

The Bombay High Court also referred to a book written by Baillie, A Digest on Moohummudan Law, in which the distinction between a void and irregular marriage and the consequences of such marriage are clearly discussed. Not only Bombay High Court but various other High Courts considered the decision of Calcutta High Court erroneous, such as in 1926 Oudh Chief Court in Kaniza v. Hasan Ahmad Khan (1926), Lahore High Court in Talimand v. Muhammad Din (1930) and in 1937 Madras High Court in Rahiman Bibi Saheba, By Agent Syed Yusuf v. Mahboob Bibi Saheba And Ors. (1937).

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a marriage that is temporarily prohibited but has the potential to become valid once the prohibition is lifted is not void but irregular; as a result, it will continue to exist until it is declared void by a competent court, and the wife and children of such a marriage will be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court took into consideration the opinions of these High Courts and agreed with their reasoning.

The Supreme Court decided not to interfere with the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court and dismissed the appeal. And also, in addition, directed the appellant to pay Rs 10,000 as a cost of litigation.

Rationale behind this judgement

The rationale behind this judgement revolves around balancing the principles of Muslim law with secular provisions of the CrPC in order to protect vulnerable classes in matters of marriage and maintenance and it involves several legal principles and considerations.

  • Nature of marriage in Muslim Law : The Supreme Court recognised the distinct classification of marriages in Muslim law into valid (sahih), void (batil), and irregular (fasid). The status of the marriage directly affects the rights and obligations of the parties involved, including the provision of maintenance.
  • Determining the validity of marriage : The Court emphasised the importance of assessing whether the marriage was valid, void, or irregular according to Muslim law. The legal effect in each case will vary and this determination will influence the application of maintenance provisions under Section 125 CrPC.
  • Application of Section 125 CrPC : It has been held at various instances by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Section 125 CrPC is a secular law aimed at providing maintenance to dependents such as wives, children, and parents, and the same was held in this case.
  • Entitlement to maintenance: The Court’s rationale focused on whether the woman in question could be considered a “wife” under Section 125 CrPC. If the marriage was found to be void, she would not be considered a wife and thus not entitled to maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. On the other hand, if the marriage was irregular but not yet dissolved, she might still be entitled to maintenance.
  • Protection of vulnerable parties: The Supreme Court aimed to provide protection to vulnerable parties, such as wives and children, by ensuring that maintenance provisions are applied equitably and fairly. This aligns with the broader purpose of Section 125 CrPC, which seeks to prevent destitution.
  • Harmonising personal law with secular law: The Court aimed to harmonise the principles of Muslim personal law with the secular legal framework provided by the CrPC. This approach ensures that individuals receive fair and just treatment, regardless of the religious context of their marriage.

Precedents referred

The Hon’ble Supreme Court majorly relied upon the texts of Muslim law, “Mulla’s Principle of Mahomedan Law,” which clearly distinguishes between void and irregular marriages under Muslim law under Paras 260 to 264.

The Apex Court compared the concept of irregular and void marriages under Muslim law with the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provide for void and voidable marriage, respectively, by referring to the case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988). 

For the purpose of laying down the distinction between void and irregular marriage under Muslim Personal Law, the Supreme Court discussed various judgements as para 260 was interpreted by various High Courts. The list of cases in which the said provision fell for consideration is as follows, in chronological order.

  1. Karimunnissa Khatooon v. Aizunnissa Khatoon (1895): In this case, the Calcutta High Court held that a marriage between a Muslim man and his wife’s sister while the first marriage is still subsisting will be considered void from its very beginning.
  2. In Tajbi v. Mowla Khan (1917), the Bombay High Court, while mostly relying on Fatawa-i-Alamgiri, a book written by Aurangzeb on Islamic law, held a marriage between a Muslim man and his wife’s sister to be irregular and not void. The Court reasoned that a marriage that is able to become valid by a subsequent event, such as the death of the first wife or the pronouncing of talaq by the husband, cannot be rendered void and hence declined to accept the law laid down in the earlier judgement of the Calcutta High Court.
  3. In Kaniza v. Hasan Ahmad Khan (1926), the Oudh High Court, also declined to accept the view of Calcutta High Court.
  4. In Talimand v. Muhammad Din (1930), the Lahore High Court also declined to accept the view of Calcutta High Court.
  5. In Rahiman Bibi Saheba By Agent Syed Yusuf v. Mahboob Bibi Saheba (1938), the Madras High Court also declined to accept the view of the Calcutta High Court.

Critical analysis of Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum & Anr.

The judgement is significant for its interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) alongside the principles of Muslim personal law concerning marriage and maintenance. Here is a critical analysis of the judgement, addressing its impact and implications:

Harmonisation of Personal and Secular Laws

  • Strength: Here, the Court successfully accommodated Muslim personal law with Section 125 of the CrPC, which has otherwise been outside the jurisdiction of Islamic law. This balance helps to bring the maintenance claims under Muslim law as well as the CrPC so that maintenance can be awarded on true merits instead of sheer prejudice against the Islamic law.
  • Challenges: Muslim law being a law that is interpreted differently by different sects of Muslims can create inconsistencies in application and reconciling such personal law with secular law can sometimes lead to complexities and ambiguity.
  • The Supreme Court emphasised the principle of harmonious construction, which requires interpreting laws in a manner that avoids conflict, ensures that all the laws shall be in line with the principles of equity and justice and ensures that all laws operate in a complementary manner.
  • The Court found that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and Section 125 CrPC should be read together with the provision of other laws that are aimed at protecting the rights of the vulnerable sections of society and ensuring that divorced Muslim women are provided with adequate maintenance.
  • The Court also emphasised that the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, are meant to supplement, not supplant, the general provisions under Section 125 CrPC.

Clarification of void and irregular marriages

  • Strengths: The distinction between void and irregular marriage when it comes to unlawful conjunction has been done very soundly by the Court on the basis of the Principles of Islam and their impact on the provision of maintenance has also been discussed extensively. This distinction helps provide a clearer legal framework for future cases.
  • Challenges: However, because society is dynamic in nature and keeps changing, scenarios are also dynamic. The differentiation done in the judgement does not offer clear guidance on all possible scenarios or the grey areas that can arise in complex marital disputes.

Protection of vulnerable parties

  • Strengths: This mode of thinking focuses more on the welfare of parties who may be in need of protection, such as wives and children, whereby they can make maintenance claims in certain circumstances, though the marriage may be otherwise deemed void or voidable.
  • Challenges: There are implications for a more liberal construction of maintenance provisions than might be justified on the face of the judgement, and this may open up new possibilities for claims where marriages may not meet certain tests of validity. This can foster more lawsuits and create inconsistencies in judgments.

Beneficial legislation and social justice

Every law serves a purpose; similarly, Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial legislation designed to provide a quick and summary remedy to those in distress. It aims to prevent vagrancy and destitution among women and children, irrespective of their religion.

The Court reaffirmed the same principle that the welfare and protection of divorced women, including Muslim women, is paramount.  Excluding them from the protection of Section 125 CrPC, the purpose of which is to protect the needs of vulnerable classes, would defeat the purpose of the provision.

Constitutional principles

The broader principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution are principles of equality and social justice; this judgement also aligns with the broader constitutional principles of equality and social justice.

The Court underscored that the law must be interpreted in a manner that upholds the dignity and rights of individuals, particularly those from marginalised and vulnerable communities.

The Supreme Court also relied on its previous judgments, such as “Danial Latifi & Anr v. Union of India” (2001), which upheld the validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, while ensuring that the rights of divorced Muslim women to maintenance were protected and that they were not left destitute.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s judgement in Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum represents a thoughtful attempt to reconcile Muslim personal law with secular legal standards for maintenance claims. While the decision is significant for its clarifications and precedents, its application could raise challenges due to the varying interpretations of Muslim law and potential ambiguities in its scope.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, this judgement represents a landmark decision in harmonising Muslim personal law with the secular legal framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), particularly in matters involving marriage and maintenance. The case clarifies the distinction between valid, void, and irregular (voidable) marriages under Muslim personal  law and their impact on maintenance claims under Section 125 CrPC. 

The Court’s ruling enhances the legal position of individuals that may be at risk of suffering from an unhappy marriage or one that is void or unconsummated by offering clearer rulings regarding the circumstances in which maintenance claims will be appropriate. This can be in consonance with the general objective of Section 125 CrPC, the purpose of which is to remove the likelihood of destitution and support dependents.

The court’s decision to uphold the right of divorced Muslim women to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC reinforces the constitutional values of equality, non-discrimination, and social justice. This decision aligns with the broader goals of the Indian Constitution to protect and uplift marginalised and vulnerable sections of society, particularly women. The Court further opined that an irregular marriage is not null and void from its outset as per Muslim personal law. 

However, the decision also presents challenges in terms of reconciling differing interpretations of Muslim personal law and potential ambiguities in its application. However, for the purposes of analysing the effect of the judgement, it is argued that the impact it has or will have on future cases can be subject to variation influenced by regional guidelines on how Muslim personal law is interpreted and applied in different areas. In sum, it can be said that this forms the basis of a legal precedent where courts and practitioners dealing with similar cases that mix divine and legal norms of the civil law system come in handy. It has therefore important implications on how parties to the personal law are protected and treated, as they are accorded equal treatment while their religion and culture are observed.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Why is a marriage that falls under unlawful conjunction considered irregular ?

In Islam, there are two kinds of prohibitions when it comes to rendering a  marriage void or voidable. 

  • Absolute Prohibition : A marriage that is absolutely prohibited in other words, there is no possible method for changing such a marriage from void to valid is unlawful on the grounds of affinity, fosterage and consanguinity.
  • Relative Prohibition : A prohibition that can be removed and the effect of which will be the validation of a marriage that otherwise would be void is called a relative prohibition. They can also be considered temporary bars, such as the fifth marriage of a Muslim man. Such a marriage is capable of becoming valid if the man divorces one of his four wives and unlawful conjunction falls under relative prohibition; thus, such marriages are capable of being made valid. 

However, this distinction is also different in the two major sects of Islam, i.e., Shia and Sunni. Under Shia’s, there is no such thing as an irregular marriage, a marriage is either valid or void; hence, a marriage that is irregular is void under Shia’s, but in Sunni’s, it is not the same, Sunni law recognizes irregular marriages as marriages that are capable of being valid.  

What are the implications of this judgement for future cases involving Muslim personal law and maintenance claims ? 

The Supreme Court’s judgement in “Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum and Anr” (2008) has significant implications for future cases, particularly concerning the rights of divorced Muslim women to maintenance. Some of the key implications are as follows:

  • Reaffirmation of Maintenance Rights under Section 125 CrPC : The ruling upheld that Muslim women who have divorced, their right to maintenance secured under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), ensuring that they are not left out of the general law’s expeditious and comprehensive remedy for maintenance. 
  • Protection Against Destitution: By allowing claims under Section 125 CrPC, the judgement ensures that divorced women, irrespective of their religion, have access to financial support and are protected against destitution and vagrancy.

The judgement in “Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum and Anr” (2008) has far-reaching implications for the protection of divorced Muslim women’s rights to maintenance. It ensures that they are not excluded from the general legal provisions available to all divorced women in India, promoting a more inclusive and equitable legal system. The judgement serves as a guiding precedent for future cases, reinforcing the principles of social justice, gender equality, and constitutional values.

What is the significance of unlawful conjunction (jama bain-al-mahramain) in Muslim marriage law?

“Unlawful conjunction” or “jama bain-al-mahramain” is the term used in Muslim marriage law to describe a ban that forbids a man from marrying two women at the same time if their relationships are so intimate that they could not legitimately marry each other if they were of male gender. The foundation of this idea is Islamic family law, which strives to uphold limits and avoid problems within the family.

Examples of Prohibited Marriages under Jama bain-al-maharamain:

Sisters: A man cannot be married to two sisters at the same time. This is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an (Surah An-Nisa, 4:23), which states: “And [also prohibited to you are] two sisters [in wedlock] at the same time…”

Aunt and Niece : A man cannot be married to a woman and her niece (either his brother’s daughter or his sister’s daughter) simultaneously.

The Supreme Court judgement in “Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum and Anr.” (2008) has significant implications for the rights of Muslim women in India, particularly in terms of their rights to maintenance following a divorce. Here’s how this judgement impacts the rights of Muslim women.

The ruling upholds Muslim women who have divorced as being qualified to pursue maintenance claims under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In contrast to the iddat period, a set period following divorce during which a woman is not permitted to remarry, this section offers a more comprehensive and inclusive structure for maintenance. 

What is Section 125 and whether maintenance under it can be claimed by all despite presence of personal laws ?

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides a legal mechanism for the maintenance of certain relatives who are unable to maintain themselves. It is a secular provision, applicable to all citizens of India, irrespective of their religion.

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can be claimed by all eligible persons, regardless of their religion or personal laws. This is because Section 125 is a secular law designed to prevent destitution and ensure that vulnerable individuals receive financial support for their basic needs.

The Apex Court in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985), held that a female Muslim is entitled to maintenance under Section 125, despite the provisions of Muslim personal law, emphasising that the CrPC’s provisions are meant to protect individuals from destitution and take precedence over personal laws.

Again, in Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001), the court interpreted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, in a manner that does not bar Muslim women from seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, ensuring that they can still claim adequate maintenance.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here