496:
with the provisions of the secular law under section 125 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, then the law would in fact, be unconstitutional. Further the Supreme Court construed the statutory provision in such a manner that it does not fall foul of articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The provision in question is Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which states that "a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband". The Court held this provision means that reasonable and fair provision and maintenance is not limited for the iddat period (as evidenced by the use of word "within" and not "for"). It extends for the entire life of the divorced wife until she remarries.
31:
323:, holding it to the greatest authority on the subject, it held that there was no doubt that the Quran imposes an obligation on the Muslim husband to make provision for or to provide maintenance to the divorced wife. Shah Bano approached the courts for securing maintenance from her husband. When the case reached the
346:
judgment, as claimed, became the centre of raging controversy, with the press turning it into a major national issue. The Shah Bano judgment elicited a protest from many sections of
Muslims who also took to the streets against what they believed as an attack on their religion and their right to their
495:
The Court concluded that the Act does not, in fact, preclude maintenance for divorced Muslim women, and that Muslim men must pay spousal support until such time as the divorced wife remarries. However the Court held that if the Act accorded Muslim divorcees unequal rights to spousal support compared
416:
regarded it as an 'appeasement' of the Muslim community and discriminatory to non-Muslim men and saw it as a "violation of the sanctity of the country's highest court". The 'Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act' was seen as discriminatory as it denied divorced Muslim women the right to
408:
The law received severe criticism from several sections of the society. The
Opposition called it another act of "appeasement" towards the minority community by the Indian National Congress. The All India Democratic Women's Association (AIDWA) organised demonstrations of Muslim women against the move
467:
in its metamorphosis as the
Bharatiya Janata Party, became an advocate for secular laws across the board. However, their opposition to the reforms was based on the argument that no similar provisions would be applied for the Muslims on the claim that they weren't sufficiently advanced. The pressure
459:
500 – an upper limit which has since been removed. Cases of women getting lump sum payments for lifetime maintenance are becoming common. However it is seen that despite its unique feature of no ceiling on quantum of maintenance, the Act is sparingly used because of the lack of its knowledge even
440:
Critics of the Act point out that while divorce is within the purview of personal laws, maintenance is not, and thus it is discriminatory to exclude Muslim women from a civil law. Exclusion of non-Muslim men from a law that appears inherently beneficial to men is also pointed out by them. Hindu
491:
by Daniel Latifi in 2001, who was the lawyer of Shah Bano in the Shah Bano case. The
Supreme Court tried to maintain a balancing act, attempting to uphold Muslim women's rights without addressing the constitutionality of gender and religious discrimination in personal law. Court reiterated the
399:
The "Statement of
Objects and Reasons" of the act stated that "the Shah Bano decision had led to some controversy as to the obligation of the Muslim husband to pay maintenance to the divorced wife and hence opportunity was therefore taken to specify the rights which a Muslim divorced woman is
318:
Supreme Court concluded that "there is no conflict between the provisions of section 125 and those of the Muslim
Personal Law on the question of the Muslim husband's obligation to provide maintenance for a divorced wife who is unable to maintain herself." After referring to the
260:
200 per month he had apparently promised, claiming that she had no means to support herself and her children, she filed a criminal suit at a local court in Indore, against her husband under section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, asking him for a maintenance amount of
269:(divorce) to her which was his prerogative under Islamic law and took up the defence that hence Bano had ceased to be his wife and therefore he was under no obligation to provide maintenance for her as except prescribed under the Islamic law which was in total
236:, the Supreme Court of India interpreted the act in a manner reassuring the validity of the case and consequently upheld the Shah Bano judgement, and The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 was nullified. Some Muslims, including the
396:, or till 90 days after the divorce, according to the provisions of Islamic law. This was in stark contrast to Section 125 of the Code. The 'liability' of husband to pay the maintenance was thus restricted to the period of the iddat only."
327:, seven years had elapsed. The Supreme Court invoked Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which applies to everyone regardless of caste, creed, or religion. It ruled that Shah Bano be given maintenance money, similar to alimony.
285:
179.20 per month. Khan then filed a petition to appeal before the
Supreme Court claiming that Shah Bano is not his responsibility anymore because Mr. Khan had a second marriage which is also permitted under Islamic Law.
298:
and A. Varadarajan who first heard the matter, in light of the earlier decisions of the court which had held that section 125 of the Code applies to Muslims also, referred Khan's appeal to a larger Bench. Muslim bodies
210:
from her husband. However, some Muslim politicians mounted a campaign for the verdict's nullification. The judgement in favour of the woman in this case evoked criticisms among Muslims, some of whom cited the
252:, a Muslim woman, was married to Mohammed Ahmad Khan, an affluent and well-known advocate in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, and had five children from the marriage. After 14 years, Khan took a younger woman as his
762:
505:
484:
368:
219:
334:
in India remained a dead letter and held that a common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies.
222:, which diluted the judgment of the Supreme Court and restricted the right of Muslim divorcées to alimony from their former husbands for only 90 days after the divorce (the period of
602:
825:
215:
to show that the judgement was in conflict with Islamic law. It triggered controversy about the extent of having different civil codes for different religions in India.
388:
In 1986, the Parliament of India passed an act titled The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, that nullified the Supreme Court's judgment in the
475:
This case had long term implications. The case became a milestone in Muslim women's fight for equal rights in matters of marriage and divorce in regular courts.
1556:
1496:
782:
946:
796:
385:
that if the government did not enact a law in Parliament overturning the Supreme Court judgement, the Congress would face decimation in the polls ahead.
1486:
315:, and E. S. Venkataramiah. On 23 April 1985, Supreme Court in a unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the High Court.
1235:
492:
validity of the Shah Bano judgment. The Muslim Personal Law Board, an intervenor, questioned the authority of the court to interpret religious texts.
1171:
748:
256:. Then after years of living with both wives, he divorced Shah Bano when she was 62 years old. In April 1978, when Khan stopped giving her the
810:
441:
nationalists have repeatedly contended that a separate Muslim code is tantamount to preferential treatment and demanded a uniform civil code.
1541:
1432:
692:
1566:
1561:
592:
1531:
356:
300:
1521:
1465:
1451:
1295:
1276:
1181:
833:
732:
143:
1526:
237:
1491:
1081:
722:
463:
The Shah Bano case had once again spurred the debate on the Uniform Civil Code in India. The Hindu Right led by parties like the
119:
460:
among lawyers. The legal fraternity generally uses the CrPC provision while moving maintenance petitions, considering it handy.
206:, was divorced by her husband in 1978. She filed a criminal suit in the Supreme Court of India, in which she won the right to
1413:
1394:
1371:
1352:
1333:
1314:
1516:
392:
judgment. Diluting the Supreme Court judgment, the act allowed maintenance to a divorced woman only during the period of
374:
1551:
429:
tactics which allowed "cynical manipulation of religion for political ends". Lawyer and former law minister of India,
1240:
1546:
278:
90:
174:
1059:
433:
has termed the act as "retrogressive obscurantism for short-term minority populism". Rajiv Gandhi's colleague
449:
The Act has led to Muslim women receiving a large, one-time payment from their husbands during the period of
177:
government enacted a law with its most controversial aspect being the right to maintenance for the period of
1209:
347:
own religious personal laws. Some Muslims felt threatened by what they perceived as an encroachment on the
240:, supported the Supreme Court's order to make the right to maintenance of a divorced Muslim wife absolute.
1119:
413:
324:
170:
41:
30:
991:
307:
joined the case as intervenor. The matter was then heard by a five-judge bench composed of Chief Justice
525:
295:
1460:
Shourie, Arun (2006). Indian controversies: Essays on religion in politics. New Delhi: Rupa & Co.
359:, an organization formed in 1973 devoted to upholding what they saw as Sharia (Muslim Personal Law).
352:
277:
25 per month to Bano by way of maintenance. On 1 July 1980, on a revisional application of Bano, the
546:
515:
469:
437:
who was INC member and a minister in Gandhi's cabinet resigned from the post and party in protest.
304:
173:
delivered a judgment favouring maintenance given to an aggrieved divorced Muslim woman. Then the
1014:
1012:
924:
767:
510:
434:
418:
381:
judgment, many leaders in the Indian National Congress suggested to the Prime Minister of India,
331:
330:
The Court also regretted that article 44 of the Constitution of India in relation to bringing of
312:
187:
Board. It was seen as discriminatory as it denied right to basic maintenance available to Muslim
763:"SC: Right to maintenance of a wife absolute, Section 125 of CrPC applicable on divorced women"
1461:
1447:
1428:
1409:
1390:
1367:
1348:
1329:
1310:
1291:
1272:
1177:
916:
899:
Mody, Nawaz B. (August 1987). "The Press in India: The Shah Bano Judgment and Its Aftermath".
728:
520:
426:
308:
266:
253:
147:
130:
105:
908:
797:"Arif Mohammad Khan on Shah Bano case: 'Najma Heptullah was key influence on Rajiv Gandhi'"
749:"Right to maintenance of a wife absolute, Section 125 of CrPC applicable on divorced women"
425:
which happened when the Congress party was in power, as one of the examples of the party's
1536:
1446:(Nineteenth ed.). India: Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur; Nineteenth edition.
1288:
Inscribing South Asian Muslim women : an annotated bibliography & research guide
1236:"Explainer: Triple Talaq Bill and everything you need to know about itˈwebsite=The Week"
1106:
1383:
430:
351:, and protested loudly at the judgment. The spokesmen for some were the Barelvi leader
203:
188:
1510:
1167:
626:
624:
183:
after the divorce, and shifting the onus of maintaining her to her relatives or the
1470:
Shourie, Arun (2012). World of fatwas or the sharia in action. HarperCollins India.
1442:
Fardunji Mulla, Sir Dinshah (2010). M. Hidayatullah and Arshad Hidayatullah (ed.).
1170:; Aditya Mukherjee; Mridula Mukherjee (1 January 2008). Penguin Books India (ed.).
382:
265:
500 for herself and her children. In November 1978 her husband gave an irrevocable
1145:
377:, Indian National Congress had won absolute majority in the parliament. After the
218:
The case caused the Congress government, with its absolute majority, to pass the
951:
192:
108:(Chief Justice), Rangnath Misra, D A Desai, O Chinnappa Reddy, E S Venkataramiah
1502:
Small documentary on the Shah Bano Case on the series Pradhanmantri by ABP News
417:
basic maintenance which women of other faiths had access to under secular law.
1501:
1018:
920:
783:"Need law to ensure minimum interference in minorities' affairs, says AISPLB"
615:
597:
464:
249:
212:
649:
647:
645:
643:
641:
639:
1482:
Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum & Ors. (Supreme Court Judgement)
409:
to deprive them of rights that they had hitherto shared with the Hindus.
928:
207:
76:
1985 (1) SCALE 767; 1985 (3) SCR 844; 1985 (2) SCC 556; AIR 1985 SC 945
1481:
1036:
877:
348:
273:
5,400. In August 1979, the local court directed Khan to pay a sum of
199:
912:
811:"Arif Mohammad Khan welcomes Supreme Court's ruling on Section 125"
630:
853:
851:
451:
400:
entitled to at the time of divorce and to protect her interests."
393:
320:
224:
179:
166:
693:"Flashback to Shah Bano case as Muslim woman wins alimony battle"
1328:(Repr., with updated epilogue. ed.). New Delhi: Left Word.
184:
1406:
The claims of culture equality and diversity in the global era
118:
A woman has a right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of
1107:
Altered Destinations: Self, Society, and Nation in India 2009
468:
exerted by orthodox Muslims caused women's organizations and
294:
On 3 February 1981, the two judge bench composed of Justice
228:
in Islamic law). However, in later judgements including the
664:
662:
506:
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986
485:
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986
369:
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986
1425:
Altered Destinations: Self, Society, and Nation in India
1196:
972:
727:. India: University of Toronto Press. pp. 123–124.
724:
Reclaiming the Nation: Muslim Women and the Law in India
220:
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
1019:
The politics of autonomy : Indian experiences 2005
616:
The politics of autonomy : Indian experiences 2005
653:
137:
126:
112:
101:
96:
85:
80:
72:
57:
47:
37:
23:
1382:
1307:The politics of autonomy : Indian experiences
122:as the Code is a criminal law and not a civil law.
24:Mohammed Ahmad Khan (The Union) v. Shah Bano Begum
878:"Mohd. Ahmed Khan and Shah Bano Begum and Others"
1364:The Muslims of India : a documentary record
687:
685:
683:
681:
679:
677:
421:sees the overruling of Supreme Court verdict in
1326:The RSS and the BJP : a division of labour
1267:Lawrence, Bruce B.; Karim, Aisha, eds. (2007).
1146:"What If Rajiv Hadn't Caved In To The Zealots?"
1031:
1029:
1027:
907:(8). University of California Press: 935–953.
857:
940:
938:
165:, was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in
8:
1497:Shah Bano: One Woman Who Inspired The Nation
716:
714:
587:
585:
583:
52:Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum And Ors
1362:Noorani, Abdul Gafoor Abdul Majeed (2003).
1176:. India: Penguin Books India. p. 362.
1039:. Supreme Court of India. 28 September 2001
1037:"Danial Latifi & Anr vs Union Of India"
872:
870:
868:
866:
668:
581:
579:
577:
575:
573:
571:
569:
567:
565:
563:
487:was challenged before the Supreme Court in
455:, instead of a maximum monthly payment of
29:
20:
489:Danial Latifi & Anr v. Union Of India
1408:. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
985:
983:
981:
826:"My mother was wronged, gravely wronged"
631:Inscribing South Asian Muslim women 2008
538:
1309:(1. publ. ed.). New Delhi: Sage.
605:from the original on 16 February 2024.
363:Dilution of the effect of the judgment
281:enhanced the amount of maintenance to
7:
479:Challenge to the validity of the Act
355:and Syed Kazi. At the forefront was
1557:Islam-related controversies in Asia
1082:"Shah Bano's ghost over the rubble"
357:All India Muslim Personal Law Board
301:All India Muslim Personal Law Board
158:Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
89:Criminal Revision No. 320 of 1979,
1366:. New Delhi : Oxford Univ. Press.
1271:. Durham : Duke University Press.
144:Code of Criminal Procedure (India)
14:
1444:Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law
1120:"Cementing of dynastic democracy"
238:All India Shia Personal Law Board
1347:. New Delhi: Ashish Pub. House.
824:Khan, Saeed (11 November 2011).
1492:Shah Bano: Muslim Women's Right
1305:Samaddar, Ranabir, ed. (2005).
1148:. Outlook India. 23 August 2004
721:Narain, Vrinda (January 2008).
483:The constitutional validity of
311:, Rangnath Misra, D. A. Desai,
234:Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan
230:Danial Latifi v. Union of India
161:, commonly referred to as the
1:
1423:Makarand R Paranjape (2009).
1197:A brief history of India 2006
973:A brief history of India 2006
338:Movement against the judgment
1542:Supreme Court of India cases
1290:( ed.). Leiden: Brill.
375:1984 Indian general election
279:High Court of Madhya Pradesh
16:Maintenance lawsuit in India
1567:Law about religion in India
1562:Rajiv Gandhi administration
1389:. New York: Facts on File.
1585:
654:On violence: a reader 2007
366:
1522:History of Islam in India
1381:Walsh, Judith E. (2006).
1210:"What is Shah Bano case?"
992:"From Shah Bano to Salma"
142:
117:
91:Madhya Pradesh High Court
28:
1527:Muslim politics in India
1404:Benhabib, Seyla (2002).
1385:A brief history of India
1173:India Since Independence
1062:. Business & Economy
1060:"The ghost of Shah Bano"
290:Opinion of Supreme Court
1532:Women's rights in Islam
1324:Noorani, A. G. (2001).
61:23 April 1985
1286:Aftab, Tahera (2008).
1058:Rashid Faisal, Malik.
947:"1985: Shah Bano case"
593:"The Shah Bano legacy"
526:Triple talaq in India
414:Bharatiya Janata Party
325:Supreme Court of India
198:Shah Bano Begum, from
42:Supreme Court of India
1343:Jindal, T.P. (1995).
1269:On violence: a reader
888:: 844. 23 April 1985.
882:Supreme Court Reports
1517:Divorce law in India
1487:The Shah Bano legacy
404:Reactions to the act
353:Obaidullah Khan Azmi
1124:The Sunday Guardian
858:Seyla Benhabib 2002
699:. 23 September 2009
528:- Shayara Bano Case
516:Saifuddin Choudhury
349:Muslim Personal Law
305:Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind
1552:1985 in Indian law
1214:The Indian Express
1086:The Indian Express
996:The Indian Express
975:, p. 280-281.
768:The Times of India
697:The Indian Express
656:, p. 262-265.
601:. 10 August 2003.
511:Arif Mohammad Khan
445:Later developments
435:Arif Mohammad Khan
419:Makarand Paranjape
332:Uniform Civil Code
313:O. Chinnappa Reddy
1434:978-1-84331-797-5
1345:Ayodhya imbroglio
945:Ali, Subhashini.
521:Pseudo-secularism
296:Murtaza Fazal Ali
154:
153:
148:Indian Penal Code
131:Y. V. Chandrachud
106:Y. V. Chandrachud
1574:
1547:1985 in case law
1457:
1438:
1427:. Anthem Press.
1419:
1400:
1388:
1377:
1358:
1339:
1320:
1301:
1282:
1253:
1252:
1250:
1248:
1232:
1226:
1225:
1223:
1221:
1216:. 23 August 2017
1206:
1200:
1194:
1188:
1187:
1164:
1158:
1157:
1155:
1153:
1142:
1136:
1135:
1133:
1131:
1116:
1110:
1104:
1098:
1097:
1095:
1093:
1078:
1072:
1071:
1069:
1067:
1055:
1049:
1048:
1046:
1044:
1033:
1022:
1021:, p. 60-63.
1016:
1007:
1006:
1004:
1002:
990:Anand, Utkarsh.
987:
976:
970:
964:
963:
961:
959:
942:
933:
932:
896:
890:
889:
874:
861:
860:, p. 91-92.
855:
846:
845:
843:
841:
832:. Archived from
821:
815:
814:
807:
801:
800:
793:
787:
786:
785:. 21 April 2015.
779:
773:
772:
759:
753:
752:
745:
739:
738:
718:
709:
708:
706:
704:
689:
672:
669:T.P. Jindal 1995
666:
657:
651:
634:
628:
619:
618:, p. 60-61.
613:
607:
606:
589:
558:
557:
551:
547:"Judgement Copy"
543:
458:
284:
276:
272:
264:
259:
97:Court membership
68:
66:
33:
21:
1584:
1583:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1507:
1506:
1478:
1473:
1454:
1441:
1435:
1422:
1416:
1403:
1397:
1380:
1374:
1361:
1355:
1342:
1336:
1323:
1317:
1304:
1298:
1285:
1279:
1266:
1262:
1257:
1256:
1246:
1244:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1219:
1217:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1195:
1191:
1184:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1151:
1149:
1144:
1143:
1139:
1129:
1127:
1126:. 29 April 2012
1118:
1117:
1113:
1105:
1101:
1091:
1089:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1065:
1063:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1042:
1040:
1035:
1034:
1025:
1017:
1010:
1000:
998:
989:
988:
979:
971:
967:
957:
955:
944:
943:
936:
913:10.2307/2644865
898:
897:
893:
876:
875:
864:
856:
849:
839:
837:
830:Hindustan Times
823:
822:
818:
809:
808:
804:
795:
794:
790:
781:
780:
776:
771:. 7 April 2015.
761:
760:
756:
747:
746:
742:
735:
720:
719:
712:
702:
700:
691:
690:
675:
667:
660:
652:
637:
629:
622:
614:
610:
591:
590:
561:
549:
545:
544:
540:
535:
502:
481:
456:
447:
406:
371:
365:
340:
292:
282:
274:
270:
262:
257:
246:
169:, in which the
133:(Chief Justice)
64:
62:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1582:
1581:
1578:
1570:
1569:
1564:
1559:
1554:
1549:
1544:
1539:
1534:
1529:
1524:
1519:
1509:
1508:
1505:
1504:
1499:
1494:
1489:
1484:
1477:
1476:External links
1474:
1472:
1471:
1468:
1466:978-8190019927
1458:
1453:978-8171180271
1452:
1439:
1433:
1420:
1414:
1401:
1395:
1378:
1372:
1359:
1353:
1340:
1334:
1321:
1315:
1302:
1297:978-9004158498
1296:
1283:
1278:978-0822390169
1277:
1263:
1261:
1258:
1255:
1254:
1227:
1201:
1199:, p. 280.
1189:
1183:978-0143104094
1182:
1159:
1137:
1111:
1099:
1088:. 18 July 2006
1073:
1050:
1023:
1008:
977:
965:
934:
891:
862:
847:
816:
802:
799:. 30 May 2015.
788:
774:
754:
740:
734:978-0802092786
733:
710:
673:
658:
635:
633:, p. 357.
620:
608:
559:
537:
536:
534:
531:
530:
529:
523:
518:
513:
508:
501:
498:
480:
477:
446:
443:
431:Ram Jethmalani
427:pseudo-secular
423:Shah Bano case
405:
402:
367:Main article:
364:
361:
339:
336:
291:
288:
245:
242:
204:Madhya Pradesh
163:Shah Bano case
152:
151:
140:
139:
135:
134:
128:
124:
123:
115:
114:
110:
109:
103:
102:Judges sitting
99:
98:
94:
93:
87:
83:
82:
78:
77:
74:
70:
69:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1580:
1579:
1568:
1565:
1563:
1560:
1558:
1555:
1553:
1550:
1548:
1545:
1543:
1540:
1538:
1535:
1533:
1530:
1528:
1525:
1523:
1520:
1518:
1515:
1514:
1512:
1503:
1500:
1498:
1495:
1493:
1490:
1488:
1485:
1483:
1480:
1479:
1475:
1469:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1449:
1445:
1440:
1436:
1430:
1426:
1421:
1417:
1411:
1407:
1402:
1398:
1392:
1387:
1386:
1379:
1375:
1369:
1365:
1360:
1356:
1350:
1346:
1341:
1337:
1331:
1327:
1322:
1318:
1312:
1308:
1303:
1299:
1293:
1289:
1284:
1280:
1274:
1270:
1265:
1264:
1259:
1243:
1242:
1237:
1231:
1228:
1215:
1211:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1193:
1190:
1185:
1179:
1175:
1174:
1169:
1168:Bipan Chandra
1163:
1160:
1147:
1141:
1138:
1125:
1121:
1115:
1112:
1109:, p. 50.
1108:
1103:
1100:
1087:
1083:
1077:
1074:
1061:
1054:
1051:
1038:
1032:
1030:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1015:
1013:
1009:
997:
993:
986:
984:
982:
978:
974:
969:
966:
954:
953:
948:
941:
939:
935:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
895:
892:
887:
883:
879:
873:
871:
869:
867:
863:
859:
854:
852:
848:
836:on 3 May 2014
835:
831:
827:
820:
817:
812:
806:
803:
798:
792:
789:
784:
778:
775:
770:
769:
764:
758:
755:
750:
744:
741:
736:
730:
726:
725:
717:
715:
711:
698:
694:
688:
686:
684:
682:
680:
678:
674:
671:, p. 57.
670:
665:
663:
659:
655:
650:
648:
646:
644:
642:
640:
636:
632:
627:
625:
621:
617:
612:
609:
604:
600:
599:
594:
588:
586:
584:
582:
580:
578:
576:
574:
572:
570:
568:
566:
564:
560:
555:
548:
542:
539:
532:
527:
524:
522:
519:
517:
514:
512:
509:
507:
504:
503:
499:
497:
493:
490:
486:
478:
476:
473:
471:
466:
461:
454:
453:
444:
442:
438:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
415:
410:
403:
401:
397:
395:
391:
386:
384:
380:
376:
370:
362:
360:
358:
354:
350:
345:
337:
335:
333:
328:
326:
322:
316:
314:
310:
306:
302:
297:
289:
287:
280:
268:
255:
251:
243:
241:
239:
235:
231:
227:
226:
221:
216:
214:
209:
205:
201:
196:
194:
190:
186:
182:
181:
176:
172:
171:Supreme Court
168:
164:
160:
159:
149:
145:
141:
136:
132:
129:
125:
121:
116:
113:Case opinions
111:
107:
104:
100:
95:
92:
88:
84:
79:
75:
71:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
1443:
1424:
1405:
1384:
1363:
1344:
1325:
1306:
1287:
1268:
1245:. Retrieved
1239:
1230:
1218:. Retrieved
1213:
1204:
1192:
1172:
1162:
1150:. Retrieved
1140:
1128:. Retrieved
1123:
1114:
1102:
1090:. Retrieved
1085:
1076:
1064:. Retrieved
1053:
1041:. Retrieved
999:. Retrieved
995:
968:
956:. Retrieved
950:
904:
901:Asian Survey
900:
894:
885:
881:
838:. Retrieved
834:the original
829:
819:
805:
791:
777:
766:
757:
743:
723:
701:. Retrieved
696:
611:
596:
553:
541:
494:
488:
482:
474:
472:to cave in.
462:
450:
448:
439:
422:
411:
407:
398:
389:
387:
383:Rajiv Gandhi
378:
372:
343:
341:
329:
317:
293:
247:
233:
229:
223:
217:
197:
178:
162:
157:
156:
155:
138:Laws applied
86:Prior action
81:Case history
51:
18:
952:India Today
554:Article 51A
470:secularists
309:Chandrachud
254:second wife
193:secular law
127:Decision by
1511:Categories
1415:0691048630
1396:1438108257
1373:0195661583
1354:8170246792
1335:8187496134
1316:0761934537
1260:References
1247:21 January
1220:21 January
244:Background
65:1985-04-23
921:0004-4687
598:The Hindu
465:Jan Sangh
390:Shah Bano
379:Shah Bano
344:Shah Bano
250:Shah Bano
248:In 1932,
232:case and
1241:The Week
884:. 1985.
603:Archived
500:See also
175:Congress
73:Citation
929:2644865
373:In the
208:alimony
63: (
58:Decided
1537:Indore
1464:
1450:
1431:
1412:
1393:
1370:
1351:
1332:
1313:
1294:
1275:
1180:
927:
919:
731:
213:Qur'an
200:Indore
191:under
1152:1 May
1130:1 May
1092:7 May
1066:3 May
1043:3 May
1001:3 May
958:3 May
925:JSTOR
840:3 May
703:7 May
550:(PDF)
533:Notes
452:iddat
394:iddat
321:Quran
267:talaq
225:iddah
189:women
180:iddat
167:India
38:Court
1462:ISBN
1448:ISBN
1429:ISBN
1410:ISBN
1391:ISBN
1368:ISBN
1349:ISBN
1330:ISBN
1311:ISBN
1292:ISBN
1273:ISBN
1249:2020
1222:2020
1178:ISBN
1154:2014
1132:2014
1094:2013
1068:2014
1045:2014
1003:2014
960:2014
917:ISSN
842:2014
729:ISBN
705:2013
412:The
342:The
303:and
185:Waqf
120:CrPC
909:doi
1513::
1238:.
1212:.
1122:.
1084:.
1026:^
1011:^
994:.
980:^
949:.
937:^
923:.
915:.
905:27
903:.
880:.
865:^
850:^
828:.
765:.
713:^
695:.
676:^
661:^
638:^
623:^
595:.
562:^
552:.
202:,
195:.
146:,
1456:.
1437:.
1418:.
1399:.
1376:.
1357:.
1338:.
1319:.
1300:.
1281:.
1251:.
1224:.
1186:.
1156:.
1134:.
1096:.
1070:.
1047:.
1005:.
962:.
931:.
911::
886:3
844:.
813:.
751:.
737:.
707:.
556:.
457:₹
283:₹
275:₹
271:₹
263:₹
258:₹
150:.
67:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
