The release of the Bollywood film ‘Haq’ brings to the forefront the inspiring story of Shah Bano Begum, a woman whose fight for basic rights redefined justice in India. Yami Gautam essays the role of Shah Bano, a 62-year-old homemaker from Indore whose 1978 legal battle became a national phenomenon. What began as a personal plea for financial security evolved into a landmark case that profoundly impacted Indian law and society.
The film, also starring Emraan Hashmi, is based on the seminal 1985 Supreme Court judgment concerning Shah Bano’s maintenance claim. However, the movie’s production has also faced legal challenges, with allegations that Shah Bano’s story was used without consent from her daughter, adding a contemporary layer to this historical narrative.
Shah Bano’s ordeal began when her husband, Mohammed Ahmad Khan, divorced her through triple talaq. After a short period of financial allowance, he stopped all support, leaving her in a precarious situation. She then invoked Section 125 of the CrPC, a provision designed to ensure maintenance for divorced women. Her husband contested this, citing Muslim Personal Law and arguing his obligations were met post-‘iddat’ period and with ‘mehar’ payment.
The legal proceedings saw the initial maintenance order of Rs 25 per month being increased to Rs 179.20 by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, before reaching the Supreme Court.
In a historic ruling on April 23, 1985, a five-judge Supreme Court bench upheld the right of divorced Muslim women to maintenance, stating that Section 125 of the CrPC was a secular law superseding religious dictates. The court emphasized that the law’s purpose was to prevent women from falling into destitution and to preserve their dignity. This judgment also highlighted the constitutional directive for a Uniform Civil Code.
The Supreme Court’s verdict triggered significant opposition from certain religious groups, leading to the passage of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. This legislation effectively reversed the judgment by limiting maintenance to the ‘iddat’ period, with subsequent responsibility falling on relatives or waqf boards. The same year witnessed the opening of the Babri Masjid gates, marking a period of intense political and religious discourse in India.
The legal battle for Shah Bano’s rights resurfaced. In 2001, the Supreme Court, while upholding the 1986 Act, interpreted it broadly, mandating that the maintenance provided during the ‘iddat’ period must be sufficient for the woman’s lifelong sustenance unless she remarried. This ensured that the core principle of protecting a woman’s dignity remained intact.
Further clarity came in 2024 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Abdul Samad vs The State of Telangana. The court clarified that the 1986 Act coexists with Section 125 of the CrPC, affirming that divorced Muslim women retain the right to seek maintenance under either provision or both. This ruling provided a definitive resolution to decades of legal ambiguity.
Shah Bano’s story, nearly four decades on, continues to be a powerful reminder of the struggle for women’s rights and dignity, prompting vital conversations about justice in contemporary India.