Facts of the case

After the landmark judgement of Shah Bano’s case, there was a chaos in the Muslim personal law. The parliament passed and enforced The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which provided that under section 3(1)(a), a divorced woman is entitled to reasonable and fair provisions, and maintenance within the ‘iddat’ period. One of the councils, i.e, Danial Latifi challenged the above act, claiming that it was unconstitutional, and in violation of Article 14 and 21.

Held

In this case, the petitioner, in his argument said that that the Act is unconstitutional and has the potential of suffocating the Muslim women, and undermines the secular character, which is the basic feature of the Constitution. There is no reason to deprive the Muslim women of the applicability of section 125 of CrPC and present act is in violation of article 14 and 21. To this, the respondent said that personal laws are a legitimate basis for discrimination and therefore does not violate article 14 of the Constitution. The Court thereby held that the said Act was not in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Indian constitution.