Morgan Institute for Human Rights

    

Shah Bano

Shah Bano, a 62 year old Muslim woman and mother of five from Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was divorced by her husband in 1978. The Muslim personal law allows the husband to do this without his wife’s agreement. She later recalled, “I felt enormous relief, but I also hated him” (Bumiller, 1990, 166). She tried to get maintenance (similar to alimony) through the Indian court system, and seven years later her case reached the Supreme Court. Maintenance is an area of the law that falls under the personal codes, and Muslim law does not entitle women to ongoing maintenance. A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to her mehr, which is a payment to her from her husband at the time of marriage, and three months of maintenance. Following that, her family and community may help to support her.

When Shah Bano’s case reached the Supreme Court in 1985, the court turned to the criminal code, which applies to everyone, specifically Article 125. This article was from the British colonial criminal procedure code of 1898 as revised in 1973. This criminal code entitles divorced, destitute women to some maintenance. The Supreme Court used this article to grant ongoing maintenance to Shah Bano, in spite of Muslim personal law. Moreover, the court went on to argue in their decision that “a common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties in laws which have conflicting ideologies” (Hasan 1999, 126). While many Hindus and women welcomed this ruling, the decision and the judges’ talk of “national integration” and questioning of citizens’ “loyalties” was deeply troubling for India’s Muslim minority, particularly given the political context of rising anti minority agitations and violence. The controversy over this decision was further deepened because both the court and its critics could find grounds for their positions in the somewhat contradictory Indian Constitution, which both protects religious rights and advocates equality before the law.

Selected text from the Supreme Court decision

BackContentsHome