DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY; UNIFORM CIVIL CODE; SHAH BANO CASE
Directive Principles Of State Policy:
DPSP are the directions given to the STATE for the welfare of the citizens of India by the Constitution Of India. It is non-justiciable but binding on STATE as in ARTICLE 37, it has been presented that DPSPs are non-justiciable in nature but the STATE must keep an eye on it while making a law.
ARTICLE 44 : State shall try to enforce UNIFORM CIVIL CODE in the country.
๐ UNIFORM CIVIL CODE:
To understand Uniform Civil Code, first we have to understand about the types of Law :
--: TYPES OF LAW :--
1)๐น CIVIL LAW (civil matters like property, etc)
2)๐น CRIMINAL LAW (crime matters like murders, etc)
3)๐น PERSONAL LAW (personal matters)
๐ It includes the cases like marriage/ divorce/ adoption/ succession/ *MAINTENANCE, etc.
Civil Laws and Criminal Laws are regardless of any religion hence known as universally applied Laws. On the other hand, Personal Laws are not regardless of any, it is actually dependent on religion as with respect to different religions, Personal Laws are also different.
UNIFORM CIVIL CODE intended to make Uniform Personal Laws.
๐Now come up with some of the Acts i.e. Hindu Marriage Act, Muslim Marriage Act and Criminal Procedure Code Of Section 125.
♦️ HINDU MARRIAGE ACT : The hindu man is legally bound to MAINTAIN (financially) his wife during and at the end of divorce proceedings.
♦️ MUSLIM MARRIAGE ACT : After divorce, the muslim man does not suppose to financially maintain the muslim woman.
♦️ SECTION 125 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : As we know that criminal laws are not dependent on religion so, it is applied to all citizens regardless of religion.
๐It says, any man who is capable of earning must financially maintain his wife/ ageing parents/ minor children who are unable to maintain themselves.
( *In Section 125, the definition of wife includes that women who has either been divorced or has moved for divorce untill the time she remarries somebody else.
๐ฅขSHAH BANO CASE ANALYSIS
SHAH BANO is a muslim woman who marries with MUHAMMAD AHMED KHAN in 1932. Somewhere in 1970s, Mohammad Ahmad Khan decides for 2nd marriage but when Shah Bano opposes that then in 1978, her husband divorces her by saying TRIPLE TALAQ and makes her out of his house.
According to MUSLIM MARRIAGE ACT, Shah Bano is now no longer the wife of Mohammad Ahmad Khan so there is no talk of maintenance being paid. Since, she is old , poor, illiterate so, she approaches to a lawyer for help. Then they go to Local Indore Magistrate and there Magistrate orders that according to section 125, the maintenance as to be paid to Shah Bano.
As Section 125 is saying to do what the Mohammad Ahmad Khan's Personal Laws, saying not to do. So, he claims that Section 125(CrPC) is violating his personal laws.
That is the reason that the matter reaches to supreme court as Mohammad Ahmad Khan Vs Shah Bano, in 1986 and there a question arrises......is Section 125, violating the Personal Laws of Muslim Marriage Act.
After that, JURISDICTION done a very prolific job as thay involves ALL INDIA MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW BOARD (AIMPLB) and asks that.......is Section 125, violating Islamic Laws. In answer, thay says no and even the HOLY BOOK of QURAN (Islamic Book) also says that men should take care of the women.
After knowing this, Mohammad Ahmad Khan informed that he had already paid "Mehr (dower)". Then SC says that Mehr is paid for another reason, it is not that financial maintenance mentioned in Section 125.
At last Judiciary passes their judgement by clearing that Section 125 (CrPC) is not violating Islamic Laws so, Mohammad Ahmad Khan has to pay maintenance to Shah Bano.
Soon after this judgement, the Rajiv Gandhi Government passed a "MUSLIM WOMEN (Protection Of Rights On Divorce Act) 1986. In that law it is mentioned that the "MAINTENANCE WILL BE PAID ONLY UNTIL THE PERIOD OF IDDAT".
(*IDDAT : After divorce, a muslim woman is not allowed to remarry for around 90 days, according to Islamic Laws)
This law was not supported by Hindus, Intelligent people and even muslims also.
After all these, in DANIAL LATIFi case of 2001, the Muslim Women (protection of rights on divorce act) 1986 was challenged then SC gave its Judgement that this law is not unconstitutional and one can give the overall maintenance amount with in that period of IDDAT (90 days)
So, it can be finally said that UNIFORM CIVIL CODE remained the Unfulfilled Dream Of Founding Fathers Of The Constitution Of India.
Comments
Post a Comment