Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum: maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and the constitutional engagement with personal law

The facts of Shah Bano Begum's case had a substantive familiarity. In 1932, Shah Bano — born in 1916 — had been married to Mohd. Ahmed Khan, an advocate practising in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The marriage had produced five children. After more than four decades of marriage, in 1975, Khan had begun to neglect Shah Bano and ultimately married another woman. In 1978, Shah Bano had moved the local magistrate's court under §Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from Khan. During the pendency of the proceedings, in November 1978, Khan had pronounced an irrevocable triple talaq — purporting, on the basis of Muslim personal law, to limit his maintenance obligation to the iddat period (approximately three months following the divorce).

The substantive procedural trajectory had taken the matter through multiple courts. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had upheld Shah Bano's entitlement to maintenance, directing Khan to pay ₹179.20 per month. Khan had appealed to the Supreme Court. The matter had eventually been placed before a five-judge Constitution Bench. On 23 April 1985, Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, with D.A. Desai, O. Chinnappa Reddy, Rangnath Misra and E.S. Venkataramiah JJ., delivered judgment. The case is reported at (1985) 2 SCC 556 / AIR 1985 SC 945.

The disposition upheld Shah Bano's entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The doctrinal reasoning — engaging both the statutory framework of Section 125 and the constitutional engagement with personal law — substantially expanded the substantive constitutional architecture for the protection of divorced women.

The doctrinal question

The substantive question for the Bench was whether Section 125 CrPC — the secular maintenance framework that operates as a social-justice provision in the broader criminal-procedure architecture — applies to Muslim women whose marriages have been terminated through divorce under Muslim personal law.

The substantive premises of the question engaged:

• The text of Section 125 CrPC, which defines "wife" to include a divorced wife who has not remarried.
• The substantive operation of Muslim personal law, which had been understood to limit the husband's maintenance obligation to the iddat period.
• The constitutional architecture of equality (Articles 14, 15) and the secular protection of social-justice frameworks.
• The constitutional architecture of personal laws and the substantive treatment of religious-community frameworks.

The holding

The reasoning

The Bench's reasoning had three connected threads.

Section 125 as a secular framework

The first thread is the substantive reading of Section 125. The provision, the Bench held, is a secular social-justice framework — its substantive purpose is to prevent destitution and to ensure that those who cannot support themselves are not left without recourse. The framework operates within the criminal-procedure architecture but is doctrinally a civil-protection framework; its substantive concern is social justice, not the personal-law architecture of the parties.

The substantive reading was supported by the textual architecture. Section 125 defines "wife" to include a divorced wife who has not remarried; the framework's substantive coverage of divorced women is textual, not extrapolated.

The constitutional architecture

The second thread engages the constitutional architecture. The Bench held that the substantive operation of Section 125 is supported by the constitutional architecture of equality (Articles 14, 15) and the protection of social justice (the directive-principles framework of Part IV).

The substantive reasoning was that constitutional protection cannot be displaced by personal-law frameworks that produce substantively unjust outcomes. Where the personal-law framework would leave a divorced wife in destitution, the constitutional protection of social justice through Section 125 must engage; the substantive premise is that constitutional protection operates at a higher analytical level than personal-law frameworks.

The Article 44 observation

The third thread is the substantive observation on Article 44 of the Constitution — the directive principle that "the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." Chief Justice Chandrachud observed, in a passage that has been quoted across four decades of subsequent constitutional engagement, that Article 44 had remained "a dead letter" — the constitutional commitment had not been substantively engaged through legislative or institutional action.

The observation was obiter — it did not address the substantive disposition of the matter — but it had substantial subsequent doctrinal and political consequences. The observation has anchored substantive engagement with the UCC question across multiple subsequent dispositions and political developments.

Article 44 of our Constitution has remained a dead letter... A common Civil Code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies.

The legislative response

The substantive disposition of Shah Bano produced substantial political controversy. The reasoning — engaging Muslim personal law on the substantive question of post-divorce maintenance — was contested by religious-community organisations and political actors on the substantive ground that the constitutional framework should preserve the substantive operation of personal-law frameworks on questions internal to religious communities.

Parliament's response was the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Act:

• Substantively limited the husband's maintenance obligation to the iddat period (approximately three months).
• Provided that after the iddat period, maintenance would be the responsibility of the wife's relatives or the State Wakf Board.
• Effectively reversed the Shah Bano substantive disposition by removing Muslim women from the Section 125 CrPC framework on the substantive question of post-iddat maintenance.

The Act has been one of the most controversial pieces of Indian post-independence legislation. The substantive concern — that the Act constitutionally regressed from the Shah Bano doctrinal architecture — has been the subject of substantive constitutional and political engagement across four decades.

The doctrinal restoration in Danial Latifi

The constitutional engagement with the 1986 Act came in Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001). The substantive disposition was substantively important: the Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act but substantively read it down in ways that restored substantial elements of the Shah Bano substantive disposition.

The substantive reading: the iddat-period maintenance under the 1986 Act, properly construed, must be substantively adequate to support the divorced wife after the iddat period. The husband's obligation is to make substantial provision during the iddat period that can support the wife thereafter; the framework is not, on this reading, limited to a token iddat-period payment.

The substantive effect of Danial Latifi has been to substantively restore the Shah Bano outcomes through the construction of the 1986 Act. The substantive entitlement of Muslim divorced women to substantive maintenance has been substantially preserved.

The post-Shah Bano trajectory

The substantive engagement with the Shah Bano doctrinal architecture has continued across multiple dispositions and frameworks.

The Section 125 framework continues

Section 125 CrPC continues to operate as the secular maintenance framework. The provision has been carried forward into the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita as §Section 144 BNSS, with substantively the same architecture. The framework continues to operate across religious communities subject to the specific architecture of subsequent legislation.

The UCC engagement continues

The Article 44 observation has anchored substantive engagement with the UCC question. Multiple political and constitutional developments — including Uttarakhand's Uniform Civil Code legislation in 2024, the ongoing political engagement at the Central level, and various State-level developments — operate within the constitutional architecture Shah Bano articulated.

The substantive engagement with personal law

The substantive constitutional engagement with personal-law frameworks has continued across multiple subsequent dispositions. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) on instant triple talaq, the various dispositions on personal-law questions affecting different religious communities, and the broader constitutional engagement with personal law all operate within the substantive doctrinal architecture Shah Bano contributed to articulating.

What practitioners take from the disposition

For practitioners advising in matrimonial and personal-law matters in 2026, the framework's substantive engagement supports:

For divorced women seeking maintenance

The Section 125 / BNSS Section 144 framework continues to be the operational architecture. For Muslim divorced women, the Danial Latifi reading provides substantive support — the iddat-period provision must be substantively adequate for ongoing support.

For matrimonial-law practice

The substantive engagement with personal law continues to be a substantive practice area. The constitutional architecture, the statutory framework, and the personal-law architecture engage each other across multiple substantive dimensions.

For constitutional engagement

The Article 44 observation continues to anchor substantive engagement with the UCC question. The constitutional architecture of personal-law engagement remains substantively contested across multiple substantive dimensions.

What the disposition contributed

The substantive contributions of Shah Bano that have endured beyond the immediate legislative reversal:

• The reading of Section 125 as a secular framework — substantively important across subsequent matrimonial-law engagement.
• The constitutional architecture engaging personal law — providing the doctrinal foundation for subsequent dispositions engaging substantive constitutional review of personal-law frameworks.
• The Article 44 observation — anchoring the substantive UCC engagement across four decades.
• The substantive concern about the destitution of divorced women — a concern that subsequent doctrinal and political engagement has substantively addressed across multiple frameworks.

The bottom line

Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum is one of the most substantively important constitutional engagements with personal law in Indian post-independence jurisprudence. The substantive disposition — upholding the application of Section 125 CrPC to Muslim divorced women — was reversed by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, but substantially restored through Danial Latifi (2001). The doctrinal contributions — the secular reading of Section 125, the constitutional engagement with personal law, and the Article 44 observation — have continued to govern subsequent doctrinal and political development. For practitioners in matrimonial, constitutional and personal-law domains, Shah Bano remains the foundational citation; the operational architecture engages the cumulative framework across the Shah Bano / Danial Latifi / contemporary developments.

---

Verify against the reported judgment. The doctrinal framework has been substantively engaged across four decades of subsequent dispositions; the operational architecture is the cumulative framework, not the Shah Bano disposition alone.