Trace Your Case

SHAMIMA FAROOQUI V. SHAHID KHAN

Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705

ISSUE:

  • Whether Farooqui can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC?
  • What is the sum of maintenance payable to Farooqui?

RULE:

  • The court referred to Shamim Bano v Asraf Khan [(2014) 12 SCC 636], Danial Latifi v Union of India [(2001) 7 SCC 740], Khatoon Nisa v State of UP [(2014) 12 SCC 646] and Shabana Bano v Imran Khan [(2010) 1 SCC 666] as binding precedent for the first issue.
  • The reduction of the High Court was without reason and makes it extremely difficult for Farooqui to live alone; Section 125 allows for enough maintenance for the wife to sustain herself.

FACTS:

  • Shamima Farooqui was married to Shahid Khan in 1992.
  • While living together, Farooqui was prohibited from talking to others, Khan demanded a car from the family and began harassing her.
  • Khan sent Farooqui back to her family home where she stayed for three months.
  • Upon returning, the demand for the car and harassment continued.
  • Farooqui also found out of an illicit affair Khan was having with a woman he intended to marry.
  • When she confronted him about the affair, Khan assaulted her.
  • She took shelter at her parents’ home and was treated for fear psychosis.
  • She filed a grant for maintenance of 4,000 rupees per month.
  • Khan claimed that he had already divorced her in 1997 and paid her the mehr.
  • Farooqui maintained that she had no knowledge of the divorce and had not received any mehr.
  • The case was heard by a Family Judge who set maintenance at 4000 rupees per month and further by the High Court who reduced the maintenance to 2000 rupees per month and the appeal is now presented in the Supreme Court.

HELD:

  • With reference to precedent, the Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that Section 125 is applicable to all faiths and in this case as well.
  • It was held that a woman leaves a marital home as a result of divorce, she is deprived of many a comfort. Along with this is the emotional trauma and the only comfort that the law can provide is binding the husband to provide maintenance.
  • The order of the Family Judge was not perverse, it was not as though a large fortune was given to the wife and the sole fact that the husband is now retired is no justification to reduce the maintenance by 50%.
  • The order of the High Court was set aside and the order of the Family Judge upheld. Farooqui was to be provided maintenance at the rate of 4000 rupees per month.