Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd Quasim AIR 1997 SC 3280 - Case Analysis

Introduction of Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd Quasim AIR 1997 SC 3280

The case Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd Quasim (AIR 1997 SC 3280) is a landmark judgment regarding the maintenance rights of minor children born to Muslim parents under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973. The case arose from a dispute regarding the maintenance obligations of a Muslim father. It also addressed whether the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, could override the maintenance rights granted under Section 125 of the CrPC.

Download Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd Quasim AIR 1997 SC 3280 PDF

Historical Context and Facts of Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd Quasim AIR 1997 SC 3280

The case at hand revolves around a legal question regarding the rights of maintenance of minor children of divorced Muslim parents under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The following are the brief facts of the case -

Marriage and Family Background

On 27th October, 1980 the Appellant, Noor Saba Khatoon got married to the Respondent, Mohd. Quasim. They had three children during the course of their marriage. The Respondent Mohd. Quasim due to matrimonial conflicts threw his wife and children out of their home and refused to provide maintenance. The children were aged 6 years, 3 years and 1.5 years. Following this, the Respondent remarried and began living with his second wife, Shahnawaz Begum.

Filing of Maintenance Case

The Appellant Noor Saba Khatoon filed a case under Section 125 of the CrPC in the Trial Court, Gopalganj seeking maintenance in response to her husband’s refusal to maintain her and the children. She requested Rs. 400 per month for herself and Rs. 300 per month for each of the three children. 

Decision of the Trial Court of Gopalganj

The Trial Court held that the Respondent Mohd. Quasim had failed to provide maintenance. The Court ruled that the Appellant Noor Saba Khatoon and her children were entitled to receive maintenance from him. The Trial Court on 19th January, 1993 ruled in favor of the Appellant and ordered the Respondent to pay Rs. 200 per month to the wife and Rs. 150 per month to each child until they attained majority.

Review of the Maintenance Order in the Revisional Court

The Respondent Mohd. Quasim sought to review the maintenance order adjudicated by the Trial Court under Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Revisional Court on 27th July, 1993 acknowledged that under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the Respondent was only required to maintain the wife and children for the duration of the Iddat period i.e., three months. However, the Revisional Court clarified that the provisions of the Muslim Women Act did not affect the entitlement of the children to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Appeal to the Court of 2nd Additional Judge

Aggrieved by the decision of the Revisional Court the Appellant Noor Saba Khatoon filed a review petition with the 2nd Additional Judge Court. However, the 2nd Additional Judge dismissed the review petition which was filed by the Appellant. The Revisional Court concluded that the provisions of the Muslim Women Act did not override Section 125 of the CrPC as both laws were independent.

Appeal in the High Court

The Appellant Noor Saba Khatoon approached the High Court through a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 CrPC., sought justice and review of the order. The High Court accepted the petition of Noor Saba Khatoon. The High Court held that the two older children (aged 6 and 3 at the time of filing the maintenance petition) were not entitled to maintenance. However, the youngest child (aged 1.5 years) was entitled to maintenance until she turned two years old, which was on 19th July 1993.

Supreme Court Appeal

The Appellant Noor Saba Khatoon, aggrieved by the decision of the High Court filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court sought a review and justice.

Issue addressed in Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd Quasim AIR 1997 SC 3280

The main question which was addressed in this case was whether the provisions of maintenance of Muslim children under Section(3)(1)(b) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) override the provisions under Section 125 of CrPC?

Legal Provisions involved in Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd Quasim AIR 1997 SC 3280

In the landmark judgement of Noor Saba Khatoon Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code played a significant role. The following are the legal analysis of these provisions -

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 125 deals with the order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents. It states that-

• A Magistrate may order a person with sufficient means to provide monthly maintenance if they neglect or refuse to support:
  • their wife who is unable to support herself
  • their minor child (legitimate or illegitimate)
  • their adult child (if disabled)
  • their father or mother who are unable to support themselves.
• During proceedings, interim maintenance and expenses may also be ordered with applications to be resolved within 60 days of notice.
• If the person fails to comply, the Magistrate can issue a warrant for the amount due, enforceable by fines or imprisonment up to one month.
• Section 125 of the Code also states certain conditions which are as follows-
• A wife is not entitled to maintenance if-
  • she lives in adultery
  • refuses to live with her husband without cause or 
  • lives separately by mutual consent
• Orders may be canceled if the wife later lives in adultery or refuses to cohabit without cause

Judgment and Impact of Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd Quasim AIR 1997 SC 3280

The Supreme Court in Noor Saba Khatoon case analysed the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and Section 125 of the CrPC in relation to the maintenance of minor children of Muslim parents. The Court observed that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was implemented after the judgment in Shah Bano v. Mohd. Ahmed Khan (AIR 1985 SC 945) but the Shah Bano case did not involve the maintenance of minor children, which continues to be governed by Section 125 of the CrPC.

The Court highlighted that limiting a Muslim father’s maintenance obligation solely to Section 3(1)(b) would be unreasonable and unjust to the children. The Court ruled that Section 125 of the CrPC provides an independent and absolute right to maintenance for children.

The Court also clarified that a Muslim father can seek custody of his children through a court order. If custody is granted, he is not liable to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. However, if custody is denied then in such a case he remains obligated to maintain the children until they attain majority or in the case of a daughter until her marriage.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court and directed the Respondent husband Mohd. Quasim to pay maintenance to the Appellant wife Noor Saba Khatoon and children in four quarterly installments each year. The Court also ruled that failure to pay or any delay in payment would entitle the Appellant Noor Saba Khatoon to recover the full amount with 12% interest through the Trial Court.

Conclusion

In Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd Quasim the Supreme Court bolstered the maintenance rights of minor children under Section 125 of the CrPC and ruled that they are absolute and independent of personal laws. The Court ensured that the welfare of the children remains paramount and required fathers to provide financial support until their children attain majority or in the case of daughters until marriage.