#CaseLaw 3/10
[3]. Danial Latifi and another v. Union of India [3]
✍Facts of this case were aftermath to the Shah Bano case, where the petitioner filed the petition before the court challenging the Act of the parliament.
The Act was passed as the aftermath of the Shah Bano judgment. A Muslim woman protection of rights on divorce Act,1986 was passed which envisaged that the husband in the marriage shall be liable to pay the amount of dower and the maintenance on during the period of ‘Iddat’ as embedded in the Muslim personal laws after which the husband shall not be liable or responsible to maintain his wife under any circumstances unless he would prefer it.
Issue: The issue brought before the court was to challenge the said provision enacted which was Section 3 of the Act as unconstitutional and violates Section 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
❄️Held: The court discussed the arguments which the petitioners brought before the court.
He argues that there is no reason to deprive a Muslim woman of enjoying the rights provided for her under the Criminal procedure.
And that the woman should be entitled to maintenance from her husband. Hence the court decided in his favour and declared the provision unconstitutional.
@LLBsubject
[3]. Danial Latifi and another v. Union of India [3]
✍Facts of this case were aftermath to the Shah Bano case, where the petitioner filed the petition before the court challenging the Act of the parliament.
The Act was passed as the aftermath of the Shah Bano judgment. A Muslim woman protection of rights on divorce Act,1986 was passed which envisaged that the husband in the marriage shall be liable to pay the amount of dower and the maintenance on during the period of ‘Iddat’ as embedded in the Muslim personal laws after which the husband shall not be liable or responsible to maintain his wife under any circumstances unless he would prefer it.
Issue: The issue brought before the court was to challenge the said provision enacted which was Section 3 of the Act as unconstitutional and violates Section 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
❄️Held: The court discussed the arguments which the petitioners brought before the court.
He argues that there is no reason to deprive a Muslim woman of enjoying the rights provided for her under the Criminal procedure.
And that the woman should be entitled to maintenance from her husband. Hence the court decided in his favour and declared the provision unconstitutional.
@LLBsubject