SHAMIMA FAROOQUI versus SHAHID KHAN

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 137 · Decided: 06-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 4 S.C.R. 137 
SHAMI MA FAROOQUI 
v. 
SHAHID KHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 564-565 of2015) 
APRIL 06, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
c 
s.125- Maintenance under- Claim of, by divorced Muslim 
women -
Family Court fixed Rs. 2, 5001- as monthly 
maintenance from the date of application till the date of order 
and Rs.4, 0001- per month from the date of order till the date D 
of remarriage - High Court upheld grant of Rs. 2, 5001- as 
monthly maintenance from.the date of application till the date 
of order- However, reduced the maintenance from Rs. 4, 0001 
- to Rs. 2,0001- from the date of order till the date of remarriage 
E 
- On appeal, held: High Court rightly upheld the view of the 
Family Judge - However, reduction of maintenance from Rs. 
4, 0001- to Rs. 2, 0001- not sustainable - High Court showed 
immense sympathy to the husband by reducing the amount 
after his retirement - Solely because the husband retired, 
F 
there was no justification to reduce the maintenance by 50% 
- Court cannot be oblivious of the asseverations made by 
the appellant- It is the obligation of the husband to maintain 
his wife - He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable 
to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as tong as G 
he is capable of earning - High Court while reducing the 
amount became oblivious of the fact that the wife has to stay 
on her own - Sustenance does not mean and can never allow 
to mean a mere survival - Maintenance uls. 125, has to be H 
137 
138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have 
lived in her matrimonial home - She cannot be compelled 
to become a destitute or a beggar- Thus, order passed by 
the High Court is set aside and that of the Family Court is 
restored. 
B 
s. 125 - Object and principle - Held: Principle behind 
s. 125 is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as 
well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when 
she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home - When 
C 
wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the 
parameters of s. 125, it has to be adequate so that she can 
live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial 
home - She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or 
0 
a beggar- Order uls. 125 can be passed if a person despite 
having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the 
wife - If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a 
position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation 
' 
to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance uls. 
E 125 uhless disqualified, is absolute right. 
Judicial deprecation: Application u/s. 125 CrPC for 
grant of maintenance filed but not decided for 14 years -
Held: It is distressing am; shocking that there was no order 
F for grant of interim maintenance - Application for grant of 
maintenance has to be disposed of at the earliest - Family 
courts established to deal with the matrimonial disputes, 
including application uls. 125 CrPC, have become absolutely 
apathetic to the same - Delay occurs either due to the 
G uncontrolled design of the parties or the lethargy and apathy 
shown by the judges- There should be a proactive approach 
and the said approach should be instilled in the family court 
judges by the Judicial Academies functioning under the High 
Courts. 
H 
SHAMIMA FAROOQUI v. SHAHID KHAN 
Anita Rani v. Rakeshpal Singh 1991 (2) Crimes 725 
(All); Dharmendra Kumar Gupta v. Chander Prabha 
Devi 1990 Cr.L.J. 1884; Rakesh Kumar Dikshit v. 
Jayanti Devi 1999 (2) JIC, 323 (ACC); Ashutosh Tripathi 
v. State of UP i999 (2) 763, Allahabad J.l.C; Paras 
Nath Kurmi v. The Session Judge 1999 (2) JIC 522 
All; Sartaj v. State of UP and others 2000 (2) JIC 967 
All; Shamim Bano v. Asraf Khan 2014 (4) 
SCR 844 (2014) 12 SCC 636; Danial Latifi v. Union of 
India 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 419: (2001) 7 sec 740; 
Khatoon Nisa v. State of UP (2014) 12 SCC 646; 
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Ors. AIR 2014 SC 
2875; Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun 
& Ors. 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 529: (1997) 7 SCC 7; 
Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai 2007 (12) SCR 577: (2008) 2 
SCC 316; Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani 
Chander Prakash AIR 1968 Delhi 17 4 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
1991 (2) Crimes 725 (All) 
Referred to 
Para 7 
1990 Cr.L.J.1884 
Referred to 
Para 7 
1999 (2) JIC, 323 (ACC) 
Referred to 
Para 7 
1999(2)763, Allahabad J.l.C Refer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.