“Providing financial empowerment to vulnerable wives would place them in a more secure position within the family. Indian married men who recognize this and allocate financial resources for their spouses’ personal expenses, in addition to household costs—such as through joint bank accounts or ATM cards—deserve recognition,” Justice Nagarathna remarked.
NEW DELHI: On Wednesday (10th July): Supreme Court judge, Justice BV Nagarathna, highlighted the vulnerability and position of married homemakers in India who lack independent income and depend on their husbands and families for sustenance, in her judgment.
Justice Nagarathna ruled that a divorced Muslim woman could seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) from her former husband.
“Many married men in India do not understand the predicament faced by homemakers, as requests for expenses can be bluntly denied by the husband or his family. These husbands may not realize that their wives, lacking independent financial resources, are dependent on them both emotionally and financially. Conversely, homemakers work tirelessly for the family’s welfare without expecting anything in return, except perhaps love, affection, comfort, and respect from their husbands and families, which contribute to their emotional security,”
she noted while highlighting the plight of these women.
She noted that many married men in India are unaware of the financial dependency faced by homemakers, where requests for expenses might be denied by the husband or his family. She emphasized that homemakers work tirelessly for their families without expecting anything in return, except love, affection, and respect.
READ ALSO: BREAKING | “Divorced Muslim Woman can Claim Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC”: SC
“Providing financial empowerment to vulnerable wives would place them in a more secure position within the family. Indian married men who recognize this and allocate financial resources for their spouses’ personal expenses, in addition to household costs—such as through joint bank accounts or ATM cards—deserve recognition,”
Justice Nagarathna remarked.
Despite judicial recognition of their contributions, Justice Nagarathna observed that the services and sacrifices of these women remain uncompensated. She urged husbands to be mindful of providing financial support to their wives, ensuring access to financial resources, such as joint bank accounts or ATM cards.
She believed that beyond financial security, the ‘security of residence’ for these women must also be safeguarded and improved.
“Ensuring this would genuinely empower Indian women who are homemakers, the strength and backbone of Indian families, which are the fundamental units of Indian society and must be maintained and strengthened,”
Justice Nagarathna added.
She also stressed the importance of securing the residence of such women, stating that this would truly empower homemakers, who are the backbone of Indian families and essential to society’s strength.
In the judgment delivered on Wednesday, the Bench, including Justice Augustine George Masih, upheld a divorced Muslim woman’s right to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court noted that Section 125 CrPC applies to all Muslim women, married and divorced under the Special Marriage Act, alongside other remedies available under the Act.
The case arose when a Muslim man, the petitioner, challenged a Telangana High Court directive requiring him to pay Rs 10,000 as interim maintenance to his ex-wife.
The current petition raised a grievance over a claim filed under Section 125 CrPC by the respondent, a Muslim woman and the petitioner’s ex-wife. The issue originated from a Family Court order directing the petitioner to pay Rs 20,000 per month as interim maintenance.
The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the couple had divorced under Muslim personal law in 2017.
The High Court subsequently modified the interim maintenance to Rs 10,000 per month and instructed the Family Court to resolve the case within six months.
The counsel representing the petitioner argued that, under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a divorced Muslim woman is not entitled to claim benefits under Section 125 CrPC. They further contended that the 1986 Act is more beneficial to Muslim women.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
