VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES

Danial Latifi v. Union

of India (2001)
CASE COMMENT AND ANALYSIS PSDA

SUBMITTED TO:
Prof. Shyam Kishan Kaushik
SUBMITTED BY:
Shreya Jaguri
 Table of contents
1. Case brief facts and background
2. Issues
3. Argument by council
-The claims of the respondent
- The petitioner's claims
4. Observations
5. Ratio Decidendi
6. Analysis
7. Comments
8. References
Case brief facts and background
▪ Before the Shah Bano judgment, it was assumed that a Muslim husband's liability
as regards maintenance extended only to the iddat period beyond which this
right was lost by women.
▪ Under Muslim law, there is an iddat waiting period of three to four months after
divorce or a husband's death before remarrying. Muslims under Shariat are
exempt from Section 125 of the CrPC, as questioned in Shah Bano's case.
▪ A Muslim woman can claim maintenance from the husband upon the expiration
of the iddat period. The Supreme Court said that Section 125 is secular and
unrelated to personal laws.
▪ Section 125 of the CrPC enables a Muslim woman to claim maintenance from
her husband after the expiration of the iddat period. An obiter dictum made all
moves to demonstrate anger at the ineptitude of the government in not bringing
into force the Uniform Civil Code.
▪ Muslim leaders disowned the Shah Bano judgement. The Muslims viewed the
judgment as an attack on their identity and thus rose to the defense of their
'personal law'. By then, two contentious issues had gripped the communal
turmoil in the country: the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute and a
petition seeking a ban on Quran on the ground that it propagated violence. Shah
Bano judgment added to this cauldron.
▪ The case concerned the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,
1986. In 1985 the Supreme Court had held that a divorced Muslim woman,
Shah Bano, was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC but her
husband was only liable to pay maintenance and "mahr" for the iddat period and
no more.
▪ The Shah Bano case held that a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to
maintenance beyond the iddat period if she was unable to maintain herself. In
response, the Indian Parliament passed legislation limiting the husband's
obligation of maintenance to the iddat period only.
The petitioner and others argued that the 1986 Act unconstitutionally restricted
Muslim women’s maintenance rights relative to other religions.
 Issues
The Supreme Court of India examined seven major issues pertinent to the case:
▪ The Constitutional Legitimacy of the Act:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Muslim Women Act,
emphasizing its maintenance clauses and their alignment with the fundamental
rights safeguarded by the Indian Constitution.
▪ Maintenance:
The Court examined the sufficiency of the provisions for maintenance contained
in the Act, which, by the requirement of support for the period of the iddat
alone, the petitioner-respondent represented should extend beyond.
▪ Interpretation of the 'Iddat' Period:
Central to this case was an examination of the length and significance of the
iddat period. At the heart of the discussion is whether emotional recuperation
and financial rehabilitation are possible for women within the period prescribed
for iddat.
▪ Equality and Non-Discrimination:
In regard to the discriminatory nature of the Act, the Court was to assess the
extent to which the latter infringes upon the principle of equality before the law
with respect to the maintenance liabilities imposed either by personal law or by
secular legislation.
▪ The Duty of the Husband to Pay Maintenance:
The question was whether the Act provided adequate assurance that, if the
husband were liable to pay maintenance to the divorced wife, his duty would
continue beyond the expiration of the iddat period.
▪ Compliance with Supplementary Legal Regulations:
To ensure that the stipulations of the Muslim Women Act did not result in an
unjust inconsistency or clash, the Court examined their alignment with other
legal statutes and constitutional principles.

It considered the adequacy of the act in protecting the rights of Muslim women
following a divorce and in providing them with sufficient maintenance to
sustain them thereafter.
 Argument by councils
The claims of the respondent
Respondent: Union of India: The Central Government, representing the
state and defending the constitutionality of the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Lawyers: Attorney General of India and Solicitor General represented the
Union of India, defending the constitutionality of the Act.
▪ Respondents argued that maintenance is included under the personal law of a
Muslim group. Further, they pleaded that "reasonable and fair provision and
maintenance" provided in Section 3 of the Act is only needed for the period of
iddat, and not beyond.
▪ The participants argued that personal law does not contravene Article 14 of the
Constitution and thus can be a valid distinction.
▪ Section 125 of the CrPC, the said Act infringes no rights of Muslim women.
They further stated that the said Act is an extended assistance or maintenance, in
addition to the maintenance during the iddat period, except that the woman can
re-marry.
▪ The authors asserted that the legislative body misinterpreted the ruling in the
Shah Bano case. Additionally, they posited that the Act serves to codify the right
to maintenance following the iddat period.
▪ The Participants argued that Section 3(1)(a) of the Act was in consonance with
Muslim personal law and maintained the Legislation had been a response to the
judgment delivered in the Shah Bano case, which guaranteed maintenance under
the Muslim Personal Law system.
▪ The participants said that the Act provides a scheme working within the ambit of
Muslim personal law so that women are not left high and dry to prevent Muslim
women from falling into economic destitution without extending the benefits
provided for under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The petitioner's claims:
Petitioner :Daniel Latifi: A renowned senior advocate and constitutional expert.
He filed the petition challenging the constitutionality of the **Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986** on behalf of Muslim women.
Lawyers: Daniel Latifi
▪ The petitioner thus submitted that the main object and purpose of the Act was
an amendment of Shah Bano case. The case of Aga Mahomed Jaffer Bindaneem
vs. Koolsom Bee & Ors, 1897, where transfer of religious books in foreign
language was held to be unsafe.
▪ The petitioners also stated that Sections 125 to 128 of the CrPC were superior to
the Act.
▪ In short, it violated the rights as given to Muslim divorced women under Articles
14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution and treated them inequitably.
▪ The case cited some more Islamic writings of Bashir Ahma and Sir Syed Ahmad
Khan to prove the culture of Muslims gives a helping hand to women getting
divorced. The plaintiffs said that the word 'gift' in Surah 241 shall be interpreted
by the Muslim personal law itself.
▪ They further contended that the erroneous translation by the court and its
interpretation of some Quranic verses in Shah Bano's case is not to be relied
upon. They added that "mata" is payable only in certain contingencies, such as
when the marriage had not been consummated before divorce.
▪ The petitioner held that a lady of this genre does not get any assistance from
Section 4 of the Act. They contended that the Muslim divorcees have been
treated as a class apart under the Act as against women belonging to other
religions. However, they also argued that many provisions of the Act were
violating articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
▪ They also argued that wordings of the Act must be interpreted to imply that a
divorced woman is entitled to support throughout her life and not for the iddat
period only. The Applicants thus argue that the Act casts an obligation on the
husband to look after the long-term interest of his wife and not merely her
immediate needs during the iddat time.
BENCH: G.B. Pattanaik, S. RAjendra Babu, D.P. Mohapatra,
Doraiswamy Raju & Shivaraj V. Patil
 Observations
The Supreme Court of India in Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) made certain
important findings that have resulted in a sea change in the interpretative function
and applicatory mechanism of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act, 1986. The following are the main observations of the Court:
▪ Constitutional validity and the Act's objectives:
The Court held that the Muslim Women Act did not contravene any Constitutional
Provisions; hence, it was valid. It added that the Act came into being with a view to
protect the divorced Muslim women and extend better maintenance provisions.
▪ Maintenance after the Iddat Period:
The Court explained that the husband's liability, for the period of iddat, was not
limited to the support section of the Act. The Court also held that maintenance
would extend beyond the iddat period if the divorced woman required further
support.
▪ Principle of Justice and Fairness:
It emphasized that the Act must be promoting equality, justice, and fairness; it
underlined the fact that divorced women should not suffer hardship or unfairness at
the hands of the Act.
▪ Courts' Role in Ensuring Adequate Relief:
The Court has emphasized that the role of the courts under the Act, as far as fair
maintenance is concerned, is to ensure that divorced women are paid a sufficient
amount for their living standard to continue and are provided financially beyond
the iddat period.
▪ Social Justice and Ethics:
The Court explained that the maintenance provisions of the Act contemplate equity,
morality, and legal issues. It recognised that all these principles have to be adhered
to for ensuring economic amenity to divorced wives.
Constitutional Rights and Their Interpretation:
The Court said this should be strongly understood to support the right to equality
and a dignified life, and it warned against interpretations that would affect those
basic rights.

Application and effectiveness:

The Court opined that success was primarily instrumental in the way this Act was
handled; that is, the obligation to pay maintenance had to be enforced if it was to
achieve its effective purpose.
 Ratio Decidendi
The fundamental principles of the ratio decidendi in the landmark judgment of
Danial Latifi vs. Union of India 2001 have been explained below:

▪ The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986,

is couched in language which clearly spells out that it was not meant to wipe out
or override the provisions contained in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
▪ Iddat maintenance:
After the iddat, if the wife is unable to maintain herself, she would be entitled,
as a Muslim woman, to maintenance provided by the husband.
▪ Quantum of Maintenance:
The husband's financial resources together with the wife's needs is to be
considered while granting maintenance.
▪ No restriction on iddat period:
The maintenance so granted is not confined to the iddat period, which may
extend beyond the period. 5. Greater Protection: Muslim Women Act gives
greater protection to the Muslim women, and does not take away the rights
conferred under Section 125.
▪ Uniform Civil Code:
The judgment wisely introduced the need for a Uniform Civil Code to promote
the causes of gender justice and equality.
▪ Progressive interpretation:
The judgment had given a progressive interpretation to the Muslim Women Act
so that it aligned with the letter and spirit of gender justice and equality.

The following presentation highlights some of the important inferences which

have been obtained from the landmark judgment of Danial Latifi vs. Union of
India, 2001.
 Analysis
▪ Reconciling Personal Law with Constitutional Rights:
In the judgment of Danial Latifi, the Supreme Court explained that the personal
law, in this case, Muslim personal law has to be interpreted in a way to be in
congruence with the constitutional schematics. The judgment carved out a
balanced equilibrium between the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection
of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and constitutional rights relating to equality
and justice.
▪ Maintenance Entitlement:
The suggestion by the Court to extend maintenance beyond the iddat period,
where necessary, is evidence of concern about the consequences that may result if
divorced women are left in a precarious financial position under the Act. In this
case, it's in carrying out this decision, the just support system for divorced women
would be created, which is supposed to let them have enough financial support.
▪ Role of the Judiciary:
This ruling symbolizes the extent at which the judiciary is bothered with justice
and equities when it comes to the application and interpretation of laws. It
would seem, in the interest of divorced women, that the Court has taken an
active interest, especially in the penchant for ensuring that maintenance actually
exists, not just a trifle sum.
▪ Fundamental constitutional precepts:
While interpreting the Constitution on personal law, the Court has followed the
rule that private laws must also conform to fundamental constitutional precepts.
This judgment is a pointer to the commitment of the Court to secure
fundamental rights, particularly the right to equality and the right to live with
dignity, from erosion by personal laws
▪ Practical Applications:
This decision has several practical consequences on the determination of
maintenance claims under the Act. It would, therefore, call upon the judges to
evaluate the application of maintenance in each case, based on the requirements
and the capacity of the divorced woman in that particular case. The system
ensures that no fixed rule could be laid down to rule out consideration of
peculiar characteristics of the case under assessment.
 Comments
The ruling constitutes a historic advancement for women's rights in India,
particularly in the realm of personal legislation. The Court addressed a significant
gap in the protections available to divorced Muslim women by extending the
support obligation beyond the iddat period, thereby fostering greater gender equity.

Judicial Activism: This judgment, according to many commentators, is the

embodiment of judicial activism whereby the Court takes upon itself an active role
of interpreting laws in relation to the Constitution. While many people may like it
since it supports their interest in rights of underdogs in society, others think it
amounts to overstepping into areas left for legislatures.
Need for Legal Reforms: While the judgment accounted for judicial correction, it
also brought to the fore the need for deeper legal reform to cope with gender
inequities in personal laws. The judgment by the Court underlines the need for
bringing the updating and amendment of legislation in line with the current
principles of equality and justice.
Ensuring Effective Implementation: The effective enforcement of the judgment is,
in fact, the bottom line for overall success. It should be the concern of the courts
and the authorities to ensure that maintenance laws are equitably applied,
guaranteeing that divorced women receive due support in accordance with their
rights in law. Unless an enforcement mechanism is designed and implemented,
there is little likelihood of realizing the ends the judgment has aimed at.
Wider ramifications of the judgment on personal law reforms: This judgment will
have a wider implication on the reform of personal laws within India in addition to
setting precedents on how these laws should be interpreted within the constitutional
framework, and the cases that come up subsequently specifically relating to personal
law and gender justice.

In a nutshell, the case of Danial Latifi vs. Union of India, 2001, marked a
considerable development in the interpretive technique of personal laws to be
consistent with the constitutional principles of justice, equality, and freedom.
 References
Landmark Cases Referenced:
-Shah Bano Case (Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985):
Citation: AIR 1985 SC 945
- Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (1954):
Citation: AIR 1954 SC 321
-Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985):
Directly connected to Daniel Latifi's case, as it dealt with the rights of Muslim
women post-divorce.
Citation: 1985 SCR (3) 844
- Vijaya Lakshmi v. Union of India (2001):
This case addresses gender equality issues and was referenced in arguments.
Citation: 2001 AIR 3437, 2001 SCC (4) 247

Articles and Journals:

- Muslim Women's Rights and the Daniel Latifi Case: - Published in: *Indian
Journal of Constitutional Law*.
-Personal Laws, Secularism, and Gender Justice: The Case of Muslim Women in
India: - Published in: *Harvard Human Rights Journal*.
- The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986: A Socio-Legal
Perspective: - Published in: *Journal of Law and Society*.

Website
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/410660/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/danial-latifi-v-union-of-india-a-critical-analysis/