Huck Review: Bollywood movie ‘Haq’ has been released in theaters today, Yami Gautam is playing the role of a woman who changed the idea of justice in India. Her name was Shah Bano Begum, she was a 62-year-old mother of five, who lived in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. In 1978, his life took a turn that soon took the entire country by storm. What began as her fight for dignity became one of India’s most talked-about court cases. It reached the Supreme Court, echoed in Parliament and even touched the Babri Masjid story.
The film, which also stars Emraan Hashmi, takes inspiration from the 1985 Supreme Court decision. Even before its release, it is embroiled in a new courtroom drama. Shah Bano’s daughter has filed a case alleging that the film makers have used her mother’s story without her consent.
A fight that started at home
Add Zee News as favorite source
In 1978, Bano’s husband, lawyer Mohammed Ahmed Khan, ended their 43-year marriage by pronouncing “talaq” three times in one go. He sent her a small monthly allowance for a few months and then stopped. With no means of survival, she took her fight to court.
She sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a law under which a person is required to support his spouse or dependents if he has the means to do so. It also extended this right to divorced women who had not remarried.
But her husband opposed it. He argued that, under Muslim personal law, his duty ended after the “Iddat” period (about three months after the divorce), during which he said he had already made provision for her. She claimed that by giving her “mehr” (the dowry promised at the time of marriage) and supporting her during that period, he had fulfilled all the obligations.
A local court ordered him to pay Rs 25 per month. Madhya Pradesh High Court increased it to Rs 179.20. Khan appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court order.
A decision that changed India
On April 23, 1985, a five-judge Constitution bench led by then Chief Justice YV Chandrachud dismissed Khan’s appeal and upheld the High Court order.
The judgment said that Section 125 is a secular law and it applies to every Indian citizen, irrespective of religion. The judges said the law was intended to prevent poverty and protect the dignity of women.
Therefore, a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance even after the “Iddat” period if she could not support herself.
The court also cited the verses of the Quran and interpreted them saying that Islam itself has imposed the responsibility on the husband to take care of his divorced wife. The judges said that the promise of Uniform Civil Code (UCC) mentioned in Article 44 of the Constitution remains unfulfilled.
then came the storm
The decision sent waves across the country. Sections of the Muslim community, led by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, termed the decision an intrusion into religious law. Protests were held accusing the government of weakening Muslim identity.
Under pressure, the then Rajiv Gandhi government, which had an overwhelming majority in Parliament, passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. This effectively overturned the apex court’s decision.
The new law states that a divorced Muslim woman can receive “fair and impartial provision and maintenance” only during her “iddat” period. After that, the responsibility for his maintenance will fall on his relatives or otherwise by the State Waqf Board.
Another turning point came that year. The doors of Babri Masjid were opened in Uttar Pradesh. Both moments changed India’s political discourse – one on rights and religion and the other on faith and power.
The law was challenged again
Soon after, the constitutional validity of the 1986 law was challenged by Daniel Latifi, a lawyer representing Bano. In 2001, the matter again reached the Supreme Court.
A five-judge bench upheld the 1986 Act but interpreted it broadly. Judges ruled that the husband must pay within the “iddat” period, but the amount must be large enough to provide for his ex-wife’s lifetime unless she remarries.
This preserved the essence of the Shah Bano judgment that a woman’s dignity should not depend on the calendar.
Decades later, a final word
The debate did not end here. Confusion remains: Can a divorced Muslim woman still approach court under Section 125 of the CrPC or was the 1986 Act her only option?
In 2024, the Supreme Court finally clarified the Mohammed case. Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana. A division bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih ruled that the 1986 Act does not take away a woman’s right to seek maintenance under the CrPC.
The court said that both the laws co-exist and one does not cancel the other. The top court said that a divorced Muslim woman can choose either or even both ways to get justice.
A story that refuses to fade away
Shah Bano’s story continues to resonate even after nearly four decades of her plea for dignity. It has reached the conscience of the country from the courtroom to the cinema hall and from the Constitution bench.
‘Haq’ may be a film, but the real story started years ago in a small house in Indore. It still poses the same question that once echoed in the Supreme Court: What does justice really mean for a woman who refuses to give up her dignity?