Family Law

Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan

(2015) 5 SCC 705

Facts

Shamima Farooqui married Shahid Khan in April 1992.
She alleged that after marriage:
her husband restricted her movements;
demanded a car;
harassed and assaulted her;
eventually sent her to her parental home.
She filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance.
The husband claimed that he had divorced her in June 1997 and had paid the required mahr.
The Family Court awarded:
₹2,500 per month from the date of application until 17 February 2012; and
₹4,000 per month thereafter until her remarriage.
The husband’s salary had been found to be ₹17,654 per month in May 2009.
The High Court reduced the post-retirement maintenance to ₹2,000 per month because the husband had retired in April 2012.
The wife appealed.

Section 125 is a social-justice remedy intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution.
It applies to a divorced Muslim woman who has not remarried.
Maintenance is not a charitable payment or token amount.
It should enable the woman to live with reasonable dignity consistent with the standard of life in the matrimonial home.
A financially capable or able-bodied husband cannot avoid responsibility through vague pleas of difficulty.
Retirement may affect income, but does not by itself justify an arbitrary reduction.
Revisional courts should not interfere with a properly reasoned maintenance order merely because they might have selected another amount.

The Supreme Court criticised the approach of treating maintenance as a reluctant concession to the wife.
Food alone is not enough; reasonable maintenance includes:
clothing;
residence;
medical requirements;
basic comfort;
a life of dignity.
Shamima’s ability to stay temporarily in her parental home did not mean that all her financial needs had disappeared.
A roof provided by relatives cannot be treated as permanent financial independence.
The High Court had focused almost exclusively on the husband’s retirement.
It had not adequately examined:
his retirement benefits;
pension or other income;
the wife’s actual expenses;
inflation;
the earlier finding regarding his earnings.
No material showed that the Family Court’s amount was excessive or legally perverse.
Reducing maintenance from ₹4,000 to ₹2,000 solely because of retirement ignored the wife’s continuing needs.
The Court also emphasised that maintenance proceedings must be disposed of promptly.
Delays can defeat the remedy because the claimant requires immediate support for daily survival.
Courts should not allow repeated adjournments or procedural tactics to make an order meaningless.

The wife’s appeals were allowed.
The High Court’s reduction was set aside.
The Family Court’s maintenance order was restored.
A divorced Muslim woman may maintain a claim under Section 125 until remarriage.
Retirement alone did not justify reducing the amount by half.
Use this case for: maintenance must secure dignified living, and courts should not mechanically reduce it because the husband retires.