In the Mary Roy case, the court found that where secular and personal laws conflicted, women should be able to benefit from the more favorable law.
Divorced women in India, regardless of religion, are entitled to the benefits of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court agreed that a woman might choose between personal and secular law. The case concerned a divorced Muslim lady who might have sought maintenance under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986.
In 1986, the Rajiv Gandhi government introduced a special statute in response to a nationwide outrage against a Supreme Court ruling that granted monthly support of Rs 125 to the old and indigent Shah Bano.
Despite their enabling nature, the two laws differ fundamentally. The 1986 law allows for maintenance during “iddat,” a three-month period where a woman is unable to remarry. However, under the CrPC, she is entitled to alimony until she marries again.
Children in her custody are only entitled to maintenance for two years under Muslim law, although secular law allows them to receive it until they reach adulthood. The court determined that if there was a conflict of interest between two statutes, the woman could benefit from the more favorable one. The woman should not be treated differently based on her Muslim identity. In the Mary Roy case, the court found that where secular and personal laws conflicted, women should be allowed to benefit from the legislation that was most favorable to them. Although the rulings may change, the essential premise remains consistent.
ABHISHEK VERMA
Author: This news is edited by: Abhishek Verma, (Editor, CANON TIMES)
Authentic news.
