Danial Latifi vs Union of India (2001)
Relevant Court:Supreme Court of India
Facts:The case was filed by Danial Latifi, a Muslim woman, challenging the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which was enacted to provide maintenance to divorced Muslim women. Danial Latifi and other petitioners argued that the provisions of the Act did not ensure sufficient maintenance for divorced women and left them financially vulnerable after the iddat period (the waiting period after divorce). The Act required the husband to provide "reasonable and fair provision" to the wife during the iddat period, but there was no clear definition or amount prescribed for this maintenance. The petitioners contended that this vagueness allowed husbands to provide inadequate or no maintenance at all. They further argued that the law should ensure a continuous and adequate provision for the wife beyond the iddat period to protect her from destitution. The case examined whether the Act, as it stood, was capable of ensuring the dignity and livelihood of divorced Muslim women, or whether it needed judicial intervention to be made more specific and substantial.
Citation:(2001) 7 SCC 740
Issues:
● Whether the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, is constitutional.
● Whether the Act provides adequate and sufficient maintenance for divorced women.
● Whether the provision for "reasonable and fair" maintenance should be interpreted expansively to ensure financial security for divorced women beyond the iddat period.
Relevant Articles:
Article 14 – Right to equality before the law.
Article 15 – Prohibition of discrimination based on sex, religion, etc.
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty, including the right to live with dignity.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act but interpreted the term "reasonable and fair provision" as requiring adequate maintenance that ensures the dignity and livelihood of divorced women. The Court emphasized that maintenance should not be confined merely to the iddat period but should ensure the wife’s financial security for a reasonable period. It ruled that the husband must provide maintenance in a manner that guarantees the divorced woman’s survival without any economic hardship, and the maintenance amount must be substantial enough to ensure that the wife does not become destitute after divorce.
-Harinya
Saveetha School of Law
Comments