The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was enacted to provide for the rights of Muslim women who have been divorced by their husbands and to protect their rights to maintenance. The Act was aimed at addressing the issues of maintenance and financial support for divorced Muslim women.
In the Danial Latifi case, the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Act was challenged. The primary contention was that the Act, in its original form, did not provide a reasonable and fair provision for maintenance to divorced Muslim women, thus violating their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth) of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the Act was not violative of the constitutional rights of Muslim women. The court observed that the Act’s objective was to provide a reasonable and fair provision for the maintenance of divorced Muslim women and, in doing so, it did not discriminate against them. The court also emphasized the need for interpreting personal laws, including those related to marriage and divorce, in a manner consistent with the constitutional principles of justice, equality, and dignity.
The Danial Latifi case is important as it addresses the balance between personal laws and constitutional principles, particularly in the context of providing maintenance to divorced Muslim women. It also highlights the ongoing debate and discussions surrounding uniform civil code in India, which seeks to replace personal laws with a common set of laws applicable to all citizens, irrespective of their religion.