DANIAL LATIFI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is in challenge before us in these cases.

(2.) The facts in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985 (2) SCC 556.

(3.) Thus, the principal question for consideration before this Court was the interpretation of Sec. 127(3)(b) Cr.P.C. that where a Muslim woman had been divorced by her husband and paid her mahr, would it indemnify the husband from his obligation under the provisions of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. A five-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated that the Code of Criminal Procedure controls the proceedings in such matters and overrides the personal law of the parties. If there was a conflict between the terms of the Code and the rights and obligations of the individuals, the former would prevail. This Court pointed out that mahr is more closely connected with marriage than with divorce though mahr or a significant portion of it, is usually payable at the time the marriage is dissolved, whether by death or divorce. This fact is relevant in the context of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., even if it is not relevant in the context of Sec. 127(3)(b) Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court held that it is a sum payable on divorce within the meaning of Sec. 127(3)(b) Cr.P.C. and held that mahr is such a sum which cannot ipso facto absolve the husbands liability under the Act.