High Courts have interpreted "just and fair provision" that a woman is entitled to during her
iddat period very broadly to include amounts worth hundreds of thousands of rupees. More recently, the Supreme Court in
Danial Latifi v. Union of India read the Act with Articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution of India, which prevent discrimination on the basis of sex, and held that the intention of the framers could not have been to deprive Muslim women of their rights. Further, the Supreme Court construed the statutory provision in such a manner that it does not fall foul of Articles 14 and 15. The provision in question is Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which states that "a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddah period by her former husband". The Court held this provision means that reasonable and fair provision and maintenance is not limited for the iddah period (as evidenced by the use of word "within" and not "for"). It extends for the entire life of the divorced wife until she remarries. In
Shabana Bano v Imran Khan, the Supreme Court held that a Muslim divorced woman who has no means to maintain herself is entitled to get maintenance from her former husband even after the period of iddah and she can claim the same under S.125 CrPC. Divorced women are entitled to maintenance from their former husband not only for the iddat period but also to reasonable and fair provisions for future maintenance. S.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act has to be interpreted liberally to assist divorced women. K. Zunaideen v. Ameena Begum (1998) 1 ctc 566. ==Notes==