Introduction
In a significant judgment dated 04.02.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Shahjahan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 2112 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10430 of 2018), set aside the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Allahabad High Court which had denied maintenance to the appellant-wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court reaffirmed that Section 125 is a beneficial provision designed to safeguard dependents—particularly women and children—from destitution, and clarified that maintenance must ordinarily be awarded from the date of application, not from the date of order.
Background of the Case
- The appellant and respondent No. 2 (husband) were married on 24.09.2002 under Islamic personal law.
- This was a second marriage for both parties.
- Two children were born out of the wedlock: Aatika (daughter, now major) and Muzammil (son, still a minor at the time of the decision).
- In 2005, the husband filed a divorce petition before a Sharia court in Bhopal, which was later dismissed in light of a mutual compromise dated 22.11.2005.
- In 2008, the appellant was allegedly subjected to cruelty and ousted from the matrimonial home. She subsequently filed an application under Section 125 CrPC, seeking maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month for herself and Rs. 1,000 per month for each child.
- Meanwhile, the respondent again filed for divorce before a Sharia forum, and obtained a Talaqnama on 22.01.2009.
Findings of Lower Courts
- The Family Court, Jhansi, vide its order dated 23.04.2010, granted maintenance only to the children (Rs. 1,500/month to daughter and Rs. 1,000/month to son), but denied maintenance to the wife, attributing the matrimonial discord to her behavior and finding no sufficient reason for her living separately.
- The Allahabad High Court, in Criminal Revision No. 2829 of 2010, dismissed the wife’s revision petition and upheld the Family Court’s reasoning.
Supreme Court’s Intervention
1. Rejection of Sharia Court Decrees
The Apex Court observed that forums like the Court of Kazi and Darul Kaza (Kajiyat) do not possess any legal recognition in India’s constitutional framework. Drawing from its earlier ruling in Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India (2014) 7 SCC 707, the Court reiterated that any declaration or decision issued by Sharia forums has no legal enforceability unless both parties voluntarily accept them—and even then, only if such acceptance does not contravene any statutory law.
2. Dowry Demand Presumption Was Illogical
The Supreme Court found fault in the Family Court’s assumption that since it was a second marriage for both, the possibility of dowry demand was improbable. It held such presumptions to be legally flawed and speculative, emphasizing that courts are not to sermonize on moral assumptions but must adhere to evidence-based adjudication.
3. Misreading of Compromise Deed
The Family Court had relied on a compromise deed dated 22.11.2005 to claim that the wife had admitted fault. The Supreme Court categorically rejected this interpretation, noting that the compromise merely indicated a mutual decision to cohabit peacefully and did not record any admission of guilt or misconduct on the wife’s part.
4. No Justification for Denial of Maintenance
The Court emphasized that the wife was denied maintenance without a legally sustainable basis. Evidence showed she was forced out of the matrimonial home and had no independent source of income. Moreover, the husband had filed multiple divorce suits against her, contradicting his claim of willingness to cohabit.
Legal Principles Reiterated
Section 125 CrPC as a Social Welfare Provision
The Court reaffirmed that Section 125 CrPC is a welfare legislation, designed to prevent wives and children from falling into destitution. Courts must interpret it purposively to advance social justice, especially given delays in the justice delivery system.
Maintenance from Date of Application
Quoting from Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Supreme Court ruled that maintenance is to be awarded from the date of filing the application, unless specific reasons justify deviation. The delay in disposal should not disadvantage the claimant.
“It would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases… the delay in adjudication was not only against human rights, but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual.”
— Rajnesh v. Neha
Final Directions by the Supreme Court
- Maintenance of Rs. 4,000/month granted to the appellant-wife, effective from the date of the application (2008).
- Maintenance for both children also made retrospective, i.e., from the date of the application.
- Maintenance to daughter ceased on attaining majority.
- Arrears to be cleared within 4 months, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid.
- Orders of the Family Court and High Court were set aside.
- The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Conclusion
This decision is a crucial reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s stance that procedural delays must not dilute the protective intent of Section 125 CrPC. It underscores the importance of judicial sensitivity, especially in cases involving the economic vulnerability of women and children. Additionally, the Court has sent a clear message that informal religious adjudicatory forums cannot override or substitute the legally recognized court system in India.
This judgment stands as a reminder to subordinate courts that their reasoning must align with the evidence on record and constitutional values, not on presumptions or personal notions of morality.