Supreme Court’s ‘Alimony Verdict’ to be challenged by the Muslim Board

Against the ‘Shariah Laws’, says the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) regarding Supreme Court’s recent verdict on Muslim women on receiving alimony after their divorce.

Supreme Court on ‘Alimony Verdict‘

The Apex Court has entitled women, irrespective of their religion, to a claim alimony for maintenance after divorce under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The verdict has been announced under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The verdict was announced by a bench of two judges, Justice B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih held that the arrangement was a degree for social equity to secure weaker segments independent of applicable personal laws by the parties.

Section 3 of CrPC was inclined towards following of the ‘Iddat’ for a Muslim women till she claims her maintenance. Here, Iddat is the period of time a Muslim woman has to wait before she remarries, i.e of 3 months. But, currently, Section 125 of CrPC has entitled to maintenance the woman until she remarries. Section 3 had restriction of only 2 years on the former husband regarding alimony, whereas Section 125 has enabled the woman to receive it till maturity of the children.

Muslim Board’s Rebuttal

All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has expressed denial for the Women Alimony verdict claiming that it is against the Islamic laws and has decided to figure out all ways to turn down the verdict. In a statement after a meeting in Delhi, the board said, “The Board emphasized that the Holy Prophet has mentioned that amongst all permissible deeds the most disgusted is divorce in the sight of Allah, hence it is desirable to continue the marriage by applying every single effort to protect it and follow several guidelines given in the Holy Quran about the same.”

The Board has also appointed its President to come down to all possible legal, constitutional as well as democratic measures so as to ask the top court to roll back its decision. It has also highlighted the purpose of Article 25, giving right to practice one’s religion as a fundamental right, along with criticizing the verdict to be explicable in terms of the Constitution’s mentioned article.