India’s Supreme Court says divorced Muslim women entitled to alimony

Alimony isn’t charity but a right, India’s supreme court said while ruling that divorced Muslim women are entitled to seek maintenance.

Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih dismissed a Muslim man’s challenge to a state high court’s verdict ordering him to pay his former wife Rs 10,000 (£93.5) a month in alimony.

The man, Mohd Abdul Samad, argued that a divorced woman is not entitled to alimony under the Muslim personal law, which he said should prevail over secular law.

But the court said the right to seek maintenance under the country’s criminal code is a “secular provision” applicable to all married women, regardless of their religion.

• NASFAT seeks collaboration with new British PM
• 25 Muslims elected to UK parliament despite rising Islamophobia

A family court in southern Telangana state had directed Mr Samad to pay an alimony of Rs 20,000 (£187) per month to his former wife after she filed a petition in 2017 claiming that he had divorced her under the instant divorce practice known as triple talaq.

The controversial practice recognised by certain schools of Islamic jurisprudence requires a man to merely say “talaq”, the Arabic word for divorce, three times to divorce his wife.

The supreme court in 2017 ruled the practice to be unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights of Muslim women.

Mr Samad said he divorced his wife in accordance with the prevailing Muslim Personal Law in 2017 and he has a divorce certificate to that effect but it was not considered by the family court. He went to the Telangana high court, which declined to set aside the family’s court order but reduced the alimony amount to Rs 10,000.

Mr Samad then moved the supreme court where his lawyer argued that a divorced Muslim woman can seek recourse under the Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986, which is part of the personal law governing matters of marriage, succession, inheritance and charities for the minority community.

But amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwal countered that the personal law does not take away a woman’s entitlement to relief under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The court agreed. “This right transcends religious boundaries, reinforcing the principle of gender equality and financial security for all married women,” it said. (UK Independent)