{"id":221114,"date":"2009-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009"},"modified":"2015-04-03T02:45:22","modified_gmt":"2015-04-02T21:15:22","slug":"shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: ………………….J.<\/div>\n
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy, Deepak Verma<\/div>\n
           Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09\n                                       -1-\n                                                           REPORTABLE\n\n                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2309 OF 2009\n             [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.717 of 2009]\n\n\n       Shabana Bano                                     ....Appellant\n\n                                           Versus\n\n\n       Imran Khan                                       ....Respondent\n\n                                  J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       Deepak Verma, J.\n<\/p>\n
       1.             Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
       2.             Appellant Shabana Bano was married to the<\/p>\n
       respondent Imran Khan according to Muslim rites at<\/p>\n
       Gwalior on 26.11.2001. According to the appellant, at<\/p>\n
       the time of marriage, necessary household goods to be<\/p>\n
       used by the couple           were     given.   However,   despite<\/p>\n
       this, the respondent-husband and his family members<\/p>\n
       treated the appellant with cruelty and continued to<\/p>\n
       demand more dowry.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09
\n                                              -2-<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
       3.             After          some    time,     the    appellant    became<\/p>\n
       pregnant and was taken to her parents’ house by the<\/p>\n
       respondent.             The respondent threatened the appellant<\/p>\n
       that in case his demand of dowry is not met by the<\/p>\n
       appellant’s parents, then she would not be taken back<\/p>\n
       to her matrimonial home even after delivery.<\/p>\n
       4.             Appellant delivered a child in her parental<\/p>\n
       home. Since even after delivery, respondent did not<\/p>\n
       think it proper to discharge his responsibility by<\/p>\n
       taking        her      back,     she    was     constrained   to   file    a<\/p>\n
       petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
       Procedure              (for     short,        ‘Cr.P.C.’)    against   the<\/p>\n
       respondent in the Court of Family Judge, Gwalior.                         It<\/p>\n
       was averred by the appellant that respondent has been<\/p>\n
       earning a sum of Rs. 12,000\/- per month by doing some<\/p>\n
       private work and she had no money to maintain herself<\/p>\n
       and her new-born child.                   Thus, she claimed a sum of<\/p>\n
       Rs.3000\/-           per       month    from    the    respondent   towards<\/p>\n
       maintenance.\n<\/p>\n
       5.             On notice being issued to the respondent, he
\nCrl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09
\n                                         -3-<\/span>
\n       denied all the contents of the petition filed by the<\/p>\n
       appellant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. except<\/p>\n
       admitting his marriage with the appellant.<\/p>\n
       6.             Preliminary     objections      were    raised   by   the<\/p>\n
       respondent that appellant has already been divorced<\/p>\n
       on 20.8.2004 in accordance with Muslim Law. Thus,<\/p>\n
       under the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of<\/p>\n
       Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n
       as `Muslim Act’), appellant is not entitled to any<\/p>\n
       maintenance after the divorce and after the expiry of<\/p>\n
       the iddat period.            It was also contended by him that<\/p>\n
       appellant herself is earning Rs.6,000\/- per month by<\/p>\n
       giving private tuitions and is not dependent on the<\/p>\n
       income of the respondent, thus, she is not entitled<\/p>\n
       to     any       maintenance.     It    was     also    contended     by<\/p>\n
       respondent that appellant had gone to her parental<\/p>\n
       home on her own free-will and accord, after taking<\/p>\n
       all the jewellery and a sum of Rs.1000\/- and despite<\/p>\n
       notice        being    sent,    she    has    not   returned    to   her<\/p>\n
       matrimonial home. Thus, for all these reasons, she is
\nCrl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09
\n                                              -4-<\/span>
\n       not entitled to receive any amount of maintenance.<\/p>\n
       7.             The Family Court was pleased to frame issues<\/p>\n
       and     parties        went     to   trial.    After     considering      the<\/p>\n
       matter from all angles,                  the   learned       Judge   of   the<\/p>\n
       Family          Court         partly     allowed       the     appellant’s<\/p>\n
       application            as under:\n<\/p>\n
                   “(1) respondent shall pay Rs.2000\/- per
\n                   month as maintenance allowance to the
\n                   petitioner   from    26.4.2004,  date  of
\n                   institution of    petition to the date of
\n                   divorce, i.e. 20.8.2004 and thereafter
\n                   from 20.8.2004 to the period of iddat.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (2) respondent will bear cost of the suit
\n                   of himself as well as of petitioner.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       8.             Thus, the claim of the appellant was allowed<\/p>\n
       to     the     extent     of     Rs.    2,000\/-    per       month   towards<\/p>\n
       maintenance            from    the     date   of   institution       of   the<\/p>\n
       petition till the date of divorce, i.e., 20.8.2004<\/p>\n
       and further from the said date till the expiry of<\/p>\n
       iddat period but amount of maintenance thereafter was<\/p>\n
       denied.\n<\/p>\n
       9.             The appellant was, therefore, constrained to<\/p>\n
       carry the matter further by filing Criminal Revision
\nCrl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09
\n                                           -5-<\/span>
\n       No. 285 of 2008 before the Gwalior Bench of the High<\/p>\n
       Court of Madhya Pradesh. The said Criminal Revision<\/p>\n
       came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge on<\/p>\n
       26.9.2008           and   the    order    of    the   Family    Court    has<\/p>\n
       substantially             been    upheld       and    consequently,      the<\/p>\n
       appellant’s Revision has been dismissed.                        It is this<\/p>\n
       order and the order passed by the Family Court which<\/p>\n
       are the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal by<\/p>\n
       grant of special leave.\n<\/p>\n
       10.            At      the   outset,      learned      counsel    for    the<\/p>\n
       appellant           contended     that     learned     Single    Judge    has<\/p>\n
       gravely erred in dismissing the appellant’s Revision<\/p>\n
       on     misconception         of   law     on    the   ground    that    after<\/p>\n
       divorce of a Muslim wife, a petition under Section 125<\/p>\n
       of the Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable. It was also<\/p>\n
       contended that learned Single Judge proceeded on wrong<\/p>\n
       assumption in dismissing appellant’s Revision claiming<\/p>\n
       maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It was<\/p>\n
       also argued that both the courts below completely lost<\/p>\n
       sight of the provisions of Section 7(1)(f) of the
\nCrl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09
\n                                          -6-<\/span>
\n       Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as<\/p>\n
       the ‘Family Act’).\n<\/p>\n
       11.            On the other hand, Shri S.K. Dubey, learned<\/p>\n
       Senior Counsel for the respondent contended that no<\/p>\n
       illegality or perversity can be found in the order<\/p>\n
       passed by the learned Single Judge and the same calls<\/p>\n
       for no interference.              It was also contended that the<\/p>\n
       appeal        being      devoid   of   any   merit    and   substance,<\/p>\n
       deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
       12.            In the light of the aforesaid contentions,<\/p>\n
       we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and<\/p>\n
       perused the records.\n<\/p>\n
       13.            The basic and foremost question that arises<\/p>\n
       for consideration is whether a Muslim divorced wife<\/p>\n
       would        be        entitled   to     receive     the    amount   of<\/p>\n
       maintenance from her divorced husband under Section<\/p>\n
       125 of the Cr.P.C. and, if yes, then through which<\/p>\n
       forum.\n<\/p>\n
       14.            Section 4 of Muslim Act reads as under:<\/p>\n
                      “4. Order for payment of maintenance:\n<\/p>\n
                   -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained
\nCrl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09
\n                                     -7-<\/span>
\n                   in the foregoing provisions of this Act
\n                   or in any other law for the time being
\n                   in   force,    where   a    Magistrate    is
\n                   satisfied that a divorced woman has not
\n                   re-married and is not able to maintain
\n                   herself after the iddat period, he may
\n                   make an order directing such of her
\n                   relatives   as   would   be    entitled   to
\n                   inherit   her   property    on   her   death
\n                   according to Muslim law to pay such
\n                   reasonable and fair maintenance to her
\n                   as he may determine fit and proper,
\n                   having regard to the needs of the
\n                   divorced woman, the standard of life
\n                   enjoyed by her during her marriage and
\n                   the means of such relatives and such
\n                   maintenance shall be payable by such
\n                   relatives in the proportions in which
\n                   they would inherit her property and at
\n                   such periods as he may specify in his
\n                   order:\n<\/p>\n
                       Provided that where such divorced
\n                   woman has children, the Magistrate shall
\n                   order   only   such  children   to   pay
\n                   maintenance to her, and in the event of
\n                   any such children being unable to pay
\n                   such maintenance, the Magistrate shall
\n                   order the parents of such divorced woman
\n                   to pay maintenance to her:\n<\/p>\n
                       Provided further that if any of the
\n                   parents is unable to pay his or her
\n                   share of the maintenance ordered by the
\n                   Magistrate on the ground of his or her
\n                   not having the means   to pay the same,
\n                   the Magistrate may, on proof of such
\n                   inability being furnished to him, order
\n                   that the share of such relatives in the
\n                   maintenance ordered by him be paid by
\nCrl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09
\n                                         -8-<\/span>
\n                   such of the other relatives as may
\n                   appear to the Magistrate to have the
\n                   means of paying the      same in   such
\n                   proportions as the Magistrate may think
\n                   fit to order.\n<\/p>\n
                       (2) Where a divorced woman is unable
\n                   to maintain herself and she has no
\n                   relatives as mentioned in sub-section
\n                   (1) or such relatives or any one of them
\n                   have not enough means       to pay    the
\n                   maintenance ordered by the Magistrate or
\n                   the other relatives have not the means
\n                   to pay the shares of those relatives
\n                   whose shares have been ordered by the
\n                   Magistrate to be paid by such other
\n                   relatives under the second proviso to
\n                   sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, by
\n                   order, direct the State Wakf Board
\n                   established under Section 9 of the Wakf
\n                   Act, 1954 (29 of 1954), or under any
\n                   other law for the time being in force in
\n                   a State, functioning in the area in
\n                   which the woman resides, to pay such
\n                   maintenance as determined by him under
\n                   sub-section (1) or, as the case may be,
\n                   to pay the shares of such of the
\n                   relatives who are unable to pay, at such
\n                   periods as he may specify in his order.”<\/p>\n
       15.            Section 5 thereof deals with the option to be<\/p>\n
       governed by the provisions of Section 125 to 128 of<\/p>\n
       the Cr.P.C.            It appears that parties had not given any<\/p>\n
       joint or separate application for being considered by<\/p>\n
       the Court.             Section 7 thereof deals with transitional
\nCrl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09
\n                                                  -9-<\/span>
\n       provisions.\n<\/p>\n
       16.            Family Act, was enacted w.e.f. 14th September,<\/p>\n
       1984      with         a    view    to   promote        conciliation    in,    and<\/p>\n
       secure        speedy         settlement          of,   disputes     relating    to<\/p>\n
       marriage and family affairs and for matters connected<\/p>\n
       therewith.\n<\/p>\n
       17.            The purpose of enactment was essentially to<\/p>\n
       set up family courts for the settlement of family<\/p>\n
       disputes, emphasizing on conciliation and achieving<\/p>\n
       socially         desirable          results       and    adherence     to   rigid<\/p>\n
       rules of procedure and evidence should be eliminated.<\/p>\n
       In other words, the purpose was for early settlement<\/p>\n
       of family disputes.\n<\/p>\n
       18.            The         Act,    inter      alia,    seeks   to   exclusively<\/p>\n
       provide within jurisdiction of the family courts the<\/p>\n
       matters            relating              to       maintenance,         including<\/p>\n
       proceedings under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
       19.            Section 7 appearing in Chapter III of the<\/p>\n
       Family          Act         deals        with      Jurisdiction.       Relevant<\/p>\n
       provisions thereof read as under:
\nCrl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
                       “7. Jurisdiction-(1) Subject to the
\n                 other provisions of this Act, a Family
\n                 Court shall –\n<\/p>\n
                         (a) have   and   exercise    all   the\n                         jurisdiction   exercisable    by   any\n<\/pre>\n
                         district Court or any subordinate
\n                         civil Court under any law for the
\n                         time being in force in respect of
\n                         suits and proceedings of the nature
\n                         referred to in the Explanation; and<\/p>\n
                         (b) be deemed, for the purposes of
\n                         exercising such jurisdiction under
\n                         such law, to be a district Court or,
\n                         as the case may be, such subordinate
\n                         civil Court for the area to which the
\n                         jurisdiction of the Family Court
\n                         extends.\n<\/p>\n
                     Explanation.-     The   suits    and
\n                 proceedings referred to in this sub-
\n                 section are suits and proceedings of the
\n                 following nature, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
                         (a) …. …. ….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         (b) …. …. ….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         (c) …. …. ….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         (d) …. …. ….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         (e) …. …. ….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         (f)    a   suit  or       proceeding      for\n                                maintenance;\n                         (g) .... .... ....\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
       20.            Section 20 of the Family Act appearing in<\/p>\n
       Chapter         VI     deals   with   overriding   effect    of   the<\/p>\n
       provisions of the Act.                 The said section reads as
\nCrl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                             – 11 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       under :\n<\/p>\n
                  “20. Act    to have overriding effect –
\n              The provisions of this Act shall have effect
\n              notwithstanding     anything    inconsistent
\n              therewith contained in any other law for the
\n              time being in force or in any instrument
\n              having effect by virtue of any law other
\n              than this Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       21.            Bare perusal of Section 20 of the Family Act<\/p>\n
       makes it crystal clear that the provisions of this<\/p>\n
       Act      shall         have    overriding        effect       on     all     other<\/p>\n
       enactments in force dealing with this issue.<\/p>\n
       22.            Thus, from the abovementioned provisions it<\/p>\n
       is quite discernible that a Family Court established<\/p>\n
       under         the       Family       Act       shall     exclusively         have<\/p>\n
       jurisdiction            to     adjudicate        upon    the       applications<\/p>\n
       filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
       23.            In the light of the aforesaid contentions and<\/p>\n
       in view of the pronouncement of judgments detailing<\/p>\n
       the     said      issue,       learned     counsel      for    the    appellant<\/p>\n
       submits         that        matter    stands       finally         settled    but<\/p>\n
       learned Single Judge wholly misconstrued the various<\/p>\n
       provisions             of     the    different         Acts    as     mentioned
\nCrl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09\n<\/p>\n
                                             – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
       hereinabove,                thus,   committed         a      grave     error    in<\/p>\n
       rejecting the appellant’s prayer.<\/p>\n
       24.            In our opinion, the point stands settled by<\/p>\n
       judgment of this Court reported in (2001) 7 SCC 740<\/p>\n
       titled        Danial         Latifi   &    Anr.       Vs.    Union     of   India<\/p>\n
       pronounced             by   a   Constitution         Bench    of     this   Court.<\/p>\n
       Paras 30, 31 and 32 thereof fully establish the said<\/p>\n
       right       of    the       appellant.         The    said     paragraphs      are<\/p>\n
       reproduced hereinunder :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “30.    A comparison of these provisions with
\n              Section 125 CrPC will make it clear that
\n              requirements provided in Section 125 and the
\n              purpose, object and scope thereof being to
\n              prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can
\n              do so to support those who are unable to
\n              support themselves and who have a normal and
\n              legitimate claim to support are satisfied. If
\n              that is so, the argument of the petitioners
\n              that a different scheme being provided under
\n              the Act which is equally or more beneficial on
\n              the interpretation placed by us from the one
\n              provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure
\n              deprive them of their right, loses its
\n              significance. The object and scope of Section
\n              125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy by compelling
\n              those who are under an obligation to support
\n              those who are unable to support themselves and
\n              that object being fulfilled, we find it
\n              difficult to accept the contention urged on
\n              behalf of the petitioners.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09\n<\/p>\n
                                 – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
              31. Even under the Act, the parties agreed
\n              that the provisions of Section 125 CrPC would
\n              still be attracted and even otherwise, the
\n              Magistrate has been conferred with the power
\n              to make appropriate provision for maintenance
\n              and, therefore, what could be earlier granted
\n              by a Magistrate under Section 125 CrPC would
\n              now be granted under the very Act itself.
\n              This being the position, the Act cannot be
\n              held to be unconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n
              32. As on the date the Act came into force the
\n              law applicable to Muslim divorced women is as
\n              declared by this Court in Shah Bano’s case
\n              [(1985) 2 SCC 556 Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah
\n              Bano Begum & Ors.<\/a>]. In this case to find out
\n              the personal law of Muslims with regard to
\n              divorced women’s rights, the starting point
\n              should be Shah Bano’s case and not the
\n              original texts or any other material – all the
\n              more so when varying versions as to the
\n              authenticity of the source are shown to exist.
\n              Hence, we have refrained from referring to
\n              them in detail.     That declaration was made
\n              after considering the Holy Quran, and other
\n              commentaries or other texts.         When    a
\n              Constitution Bench of this Court analysed
\n              Suras 241-242 of Chapter II of the Holy Quran
\n              and other relevant textual material, we do not
\n              think, it is open for us to re-examine that
\n              position and delve into a research to reach
\n              another conclusion. We respectfully abide by
\n              what has been stated therein. All that needs
\n              to be considered is whether in the Act
\n              specific deviation has been made from the
\n              personal laws as declared by this Court in
\n              Shah Bano’s case without mutilating its
\n              underlying ratio. We have carefully analysed
\n              the same and come to the conclusion that the
\n              Act actually and in reality codifies what was
\n              stated in Shah Bano’s case. The learned
\nCrl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09\n<\/p>\n
                                        – 14 –\n<\/p>\n
              Solicitor General contended that what has been
\n              stated in the Objects and Reasons in Bill
\n              leading to the Act is a fact and that we
\n              should presume to be correct.         We have
\n              analysed the facts and the law in Shah Bano’s
\n              case and proceeded to find out the impact of
\n              the same on the Act.    If the language of the
\n              Act is as we have stated, the mere fact that
\n              the Legislature took note of certain facts in
\n              enacting the law will not be of much
\n              materiality.”\n<\/p>\n
       25.            Judgment of this Court reported in (2007) 6<\/p>\n
       SCC 785 titled Iqbal Bano Vs. State of U.P.& Anr.<\/p>\n
       whereby the provisions contained in Section 125 of<\/p>\n
       the      Cr.P.C.       have   been   aptly   considered   and   the<\/p>\n
       relevant portion of the order passed in Iqbal Bano’s<\/p>\n
       case reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                  “10. Proceedings   under   Section   125
\n              Cr.P.C. are civil in nature. Even if the
\n              Court noticed that there was a divorced
\n              woman in the case in question, it was open
\n              to it to treat it as a petition under the
\n              Act considering the beneficial nature of the
\n              legislation.   Proceedings under Section 125
\n              Cr.P.C. and claims made under the Act are
\n              tried by the same court. In Vijay Kumar
\n              Prasad Vs State of Bihar (2004) 5 SCC 196 it
\n              was held that proceedings under Section 125
\n              Cr.P.C. are civil in nature.    It was noted
\n              as follows: (SCC p.200, Para 14).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   14.    The basic distinction between
\n                   Section 488 of the old Code and Section
\n                   126 of the Code is that Section 126 has
\nCrl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09\n<\/p>\n
                                     – 15 –\n<\/p>\n
                   essentially   enlarged   the  venue   of
\n                   proceedings for maintenance so as to
\n                   move the place where the wife may be
\n                   residing on the date of application. The
\n                   change was thought necessary because of
\n                   certain   observations    by   the   Law
\n                   Commission, taking note of the fact that
\n                   often deserted wives are compelled to
\n                   live with their relatives far away from
\n                   the place where the husband and wife
\n                   last resided together. As noted by this
\n                   Court in several cases, proceedings
\n                   under Section 125 of the Code are of
\n                   civil nature.    Unlike clauses (b) and\n<\/p>\n
                   (c) of Section 126 (1) an application by
\n                   the father or the mother claiming
\n                   maintenance has to be filed where the
\n                   person from whom maintenance is claimed
\n                   lives.”\n<\/p>\n
       26.          In the light of the findings already recorded<\/p>\n
       in earlier paras, it is not necessary for us to go<\/p>\n
       into the merits.        The point stands well settled which<\/p>\n
       we would like to reiterate.\n<\/p>\n
       27.            The appellant’s petition under Section 125 of<\/p>\n
       the Cr.P.C. would be maintainable before the Family<\/p>\n
       Court as long as appellant does not remarry.             The<\/p>\n
       amount of maintenance to be awarded under Section 125<\/p>\n
       of the Cr.P.C. cannot be restricted for the iddat<\/p>\n
       period only.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09\n<\/p>\n
                                           – 16 –\n<\/p>\n
       28.             Learned Single Judge appeared to be little<\/p>\n
       confused          with    regard        to       different     provisions       of<\/p>\n
       Muslim        Act,      Family   Act         and    Cr.P.C.    and     thus    was<\/p>\n
       wholly          unjustified      in      rejecting          the      appellant’s<\/p>\n
       Revision.\n<\/p>\n
       29.             Cumulative reading of the relevant portions<\/p>\n
       of judgments of this Court in Danial Latifi (supra)<\/p>\n
       and Iqbal Bano (supra) would make it crystal clear<\/p>\n
       that even a divorced Muslim woman would be entitled<\/p>\n
       to claim maintenance from her divorced husband, as<\/p>\n
       long       as     she    does    not         remarry.         This     being     a<\/p>\n
       beneficial piece of legislation, the benefit thereof<\/p>\n
       must accrue to the divorced Muslim women.<\/p>\n
       30.             In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the<\/p>\n
       impugned orders are hereby set aside and quashed.                               It<\/p>\n
       is     held       that    even     if        a     Muslim    woman    has     been<\/p>\n
       divorced, she would be entitled to claim maintenance<\/p>\n
       from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
       after the expiry of period of iddat also, as long as<\/p>\n
       she does not remarry.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09\n<\/p>\n
                                          – 17 –\n<\/p>\n
       31.            As      a   necessary        consequence     thereof,      the<\/p>\n
       matter is remanded to the Family Court at Gwalior for<\/p>\n
       its      disposal          on   merits       at   an    early    date,    in<\/p>\n
       accordance with law. The respondent shall bear the<\/p>\n
       cost of litigation of the appellant.                       Counsel’s fees<\/p>\n
       Rs.5,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
       32.            Consequently,       the      appeal     stands   allowed   to<\/p>\n
       the extent indicated above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY]<\/p>\n
                                                     ………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     [DEEPAK VERMA]
\n       New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
       December 04, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009 Author: ………………….J. Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy, Deepak Verma Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717\/09 -1- REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2309 OF 2009 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.717 of 2009] Shabana Bano ….Appellant Versus Imran Khan ….Respondent J […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-221114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-02T21:15:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-02T21:15:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3086,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-02T21:15:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-02T21:15:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-02T21:15:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009"},"wordCount":3086,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009","name":"Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-02T21:15:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabana-bano-vs-imran-khan-on-4-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan on 4 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=221114"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221114\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}