Of ghosts, Shah Bano, and the dignity of ladies

Earlier this week, the ghost of Shah Bano, lurking within the shadows for near 4 many years, popped up once more. A Supreme Courtroom ruling that each one ladies, together with Muslim ladies who marry beneath their private spiritual regulation, are entitled to upkeep, as soon as once more took on the outdated query of whether or not Muslim ladies can declare upkeep past what is remitted by their private regulation.

The reply is a convincing sure.

The 2-judge bench of justices B.V. Nagarathna, slated to change into India’s first lady chief justice in 2027, and Augustine George Masih, was listening to an enchantment towards a Telangana excessive court docket order granting upkeep to a divorced Muslim lady beneath a piece of the Code of Prison Process that gives for upkeep. It was the person’s rivalry that his private regulation didn’t oblige him to pay past three months.

The Supreme Courtroom disagreed and on Wednesday mentioned that Muslim ladies can search upkeep beneath the code of prison process. The judgment follows a precedent of earlier judgments going again to the Seventies which have mentioned nothing stops ladies from searching for upkeep past what private regulation mandates. However, for the primary time, its language establishes a brand new assertion: Upkeep, mentioned Justice Nagarathna, will not be charity however a proper.

It’s a proper of a divorced spouse who might need sacrificed employment alternatives by prioritising the wants of her husband, their kids and his mother and father.

Even inside the marriage, “an Indian married man should change into aware of the truth that he must financially empower and supply for his spouse, who doesn’t have an impartial supply of revenue, by making obtainable monetary assets notably in the direction of her private wants,” Justice Nagarathna continued in an separate opinion. This monetary empowerment makes the spouse safer in her marital house.

Offering an perception into most marriages, she mentioned it was well-known that “an Indian homemaker tries to save lots of as a lot cash as doable from the month-to-month family finances, not solely to enhance the monetary assets of the household however probably to additionally save a small portion for her private bills. Such a observe is adopted as a way to keep away from making a request to the husband or his household for her private bills.”

A quick historic detour

After 14 years of marriage, Mohammed Ahmed Khan an advocate in Indore, determined to take a second spouse. For some years he maintained each ladies, however then in 1978 he divorced the primary spouse, Shah Bano Begum. Following the observe of Muslim private regulation, he paid a sum of ₹200 a month for 3 months. Then even that cost stopped.

Shah Bano went to court docket. In 1973, the federal government had revised the Code of Prison Process to incorporate a piece 125 that handled the upkeep of wives, kids and oldsters. A piece of the Muslim orthodoxy protested that it clashed with Muslim Private Regulation and the federal government of Indira Gandhi finally granted some exemptions to Muslim males.

However the judicial problem was already brewing. In 1978, in Bai Tahira v Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia, a three-judge Supreme Courtroom bench headed by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer mentioned part 125 was not contradictory to Muslim private regulation. In different phrases, Muslim ladies might search upkeep beneath each, private regulation and the secular part 125.

The courts have maintained this place since.

In 1985, the Supreme Courtroom dominated that Shah Bano was entitled to upkeep beneath part 125. A 12 months later, the Rajiv Gandhi-led authorities enacted the Muslim Ladies (Safety of Rights Beneath Divorce) Act. Beneath it, Muslim ladies had been entitled to upkeep for 3 months, following which it was incumbent upon their family and heirs to help them. And if the heirs failed to take action, then Wakf boards, or charitable trusts, can be obliged to step in.

However even the 1986 regulation got here beneath problem, this time from Danial Latifi who by some unusual quirk of destiny occurred to be Shah Bano’s former lawyer.

Latifi was again in court docket now in connection together with his personal divorce from his spouse of 43 years. He was interesting towards a excessive court docket ruling to pay her ₹179 a month for all times (or until she remarried). Latifi argued earlier than a five-judge Supreme Courtroom bench that he had fulfilled his obligations beneath each Muslim private regulation and the 1986 regulation to pay his spouse for 3 months. He was, subsequently, not obliged to pay any additional.

In its 2001 judgment, the judges disagreed. In what Saumya Saxena, the writer of the erudite, Divorce and Democracy: A historical past of non-public regulation in post-independence India, calls “one in all its most artistic rulings” they mentioned three months was not the time restrict for upkeep however the deadline to resolve on the ‘provision of upkeep’ for a former spouse’s residence, meals, garments and so forth. In different phrases, the Muslim Ladies (Safety of Rights on Divorce) regulation of 1986 made upkeep “prolong to the entire lifetime of the divorced spouse except she will get married for the second time.”

Now what?

The Supreme Courtroom’s newest judgment doesn’t create a brand new proper. It merely follows precedent that goes again all the best way to Bai Tahira in 1978.

The problem says Nishat Hussain, the founder-president of the Jaipur-based Nationwide Muslim Ladies’s Welfare Society is implementing what’s already established with no consideration by each regulation and judicial pronouncement.

Naseem who solely makes use of one identify says she was married for only a few weeks earlier than her husband and household dumped her again house for failing to deliver sufficient dowry. After submitting varied circumstances beneath home violence, part 498A and part 125 for upkeep, she says she was capable of get a court docket order of ₹2,000 a month as upkeep. This was again in 2018 and she or he is but to obtain even a single rupee, she says.

“Ladies are languishing for years,” says Nishat. “Our legal guidelines are so lax that it’s troublesome to even get a police summons served.”

Furthermore, she provides, only a few ladies have the means to go and struggle in court docket. “Most are simply sitting at house with two or three kids, relying on their aged mother and father to supply no matter they’ll for them.”

In 1985, after the Supreme Courtroom dominated that she might search upkeep, Shah Bano withdrew her case which had change into the centre of such a political storm. She died in 1992 following a mind haemorrhage. In 2011, her son advised the Hindustan Instances in an interview “Izzat ki ladai thi (it was a struggle for self-respect… She was very ashamed of all this [publicity].)”

The next article is an excerpt from this week’s HT Thoughts the Hole. Subscribe right here.