CASE REVIEW OF SYEDA NAZIRA KHATOON V.

SYED ZAHIRUDDIN
AHMED BAGHDADI AIR 2019 SC 4676

Family Law II
Academic Year: 2024-2025
Semester: IV

Submitted by
ADITEE V.N. FUSE
UG2023-08

Submitted to
Prof. Priti
(Asst. Professor of law)

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

1
LIST OF CASE LAWS
Sr. No. Names of Cases

1.

2.

3.

Sr. No. Statutes and Regulations

1.

2.

3.

4.

LIST OF STATUTES

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. NO. TOPIC PG.NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. CASE DETAILS 4

3. FACTS OF CASE 5

4. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 5,6,7

5. LEGAL PROVISIONS 7,8

6. LEGAL ISSUES 8,9

7. ARGUMENTS 9,10

8. JUDGEMENT 10,11

9. ANALYSIS 11

10. CONCLUSION 12

3
1.INTRODUCTION

The case of Syeda Nazira Khatoon v. Syed Zahiruddin Ahmed Baghdadi (AIR 2019 SC 4676) is
a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India concerning marital rights, property claims, and
the interpretation of personal laws. The case highlights the legal position on the rights of a
Muslim woman in the context of marital disputes and maintenance claims under the Muslim
Personal Law and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.CASE DETAILS

1. Case Name Syeda Nazira Khatoon v. Syed Zahiruddin

3. FACTS OF CASE

1. Syeda Nazira Khatoon and Syed Zahiruddin Ahmed Baghdadi were married under
Muslim personal law.

2. Disputes arose between the spouses, leading to the petitioner (wife) claiming
maintenance and a share in her husband's property.

3. The husband contested the claim, arguing that under Muslim law, his obligations towards
his wife were limited post-divorce.

4. The petitioner approached the courts seeking relief under both personal law and statutory
provisions, including Section 125 CrPC.

5. The trial court ruled in favor of the wife, granting her maintenance and property rights.

6. The High Court reversed the decision, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

4
4. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Trial Court: The trial court ruled in favor of Syeda Nazira Khatoon, granting her
maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and recognizing her right to claim a share in the
property. The court held that Muslim personal law should not override statutory
provisions meant for social justice and the welfare of women.

2. High Court: Upon appeal by the husband, the High Court reversed the trial court’s
decision. The court held that under strict interpretations of Muslim personal law, the
husband’s responsibility to provide maintenance ceases after the Iddat period. The claim
for property rights was also denied on the ground that no specific contractual obligation
existed under the marriage agreement.

3. Supreme Court: The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court, where the petitioner
challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that statutory law must take precedence
over personal law in matters of maintenance. The Supreme Court adjudicated the issue,
considering constitutional principles, judicial precedents, and the necessity of ensuring
social justice for women.

5. LEGAL PROVISIONS

 Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937

 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 125 – Maintenance)

 The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for evidentiary considerations)

6. LEGAL ISSUES IN THE CASE

1. Whether a Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC despite
personal law provisions.

5
2. Whether the husband is liable to provide maintenance beyond the Iddat period as per
statutory law.

3. The extent of a Muslim woman’s right to property and maintenance under Muslim
Personal Law versus statutory provisions.

4. The role of constitutional principles in ensuring gender justice in personal law matters.

7. ARGUMENTS

Petitioner's (Wife) Arguments:

1. She was wrongfully denied maintenance and property rights despite clear provisions
under Section 125 CrPC.

2. The judgment in Shah Bano Case (Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985
SC 945) upheld a divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under statutory law.

3. Gender justice should prevail over rigid personal law interpretations.

Respondent's (Husband) Arguments:

1. Under Muslim law, the husband's duty to provide maintenance ceases after the Iddat
period post-divorce.

2. The wife was not entitled to property beyond what was agreed upon in the mehr (dower)
agreement.

3. The Supreme Court should not intervene in matters governed strictly by religious laws.

8. JUDGEMENT

1. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the applicability of Section 125 CrPC to all women,
including Muslim women, ensuring their right to maintenance beyond the Iddat period if
they lack independent means.

6
2. The Court ruled that personal laws cannot override statutory rights available to a woman
under the secular legal framework.

3. It was held that maintenance is a social justice measure, and Muslim women cannot be
excluded from its benefits.

4. The Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, granting the petitioner maintenance and
other reliefs.

9.ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Syeda Nazira Khatoon v. Syed Zahiruddin Ahmed Baghdadi is a
landmark judgment promoting gender justice and equality in marital disputes. The decision
reinforces that statutory protections for women cannot be undermined by personal laws, ensuring
that divorced Muslim women have access to maintenance beyond the Iddat period. By adopting a
progressive stance, the Court upheld the balance between personal and statutory laws,
reaffirming that religious laws cannot infringe upon a woman's right to maintenance and dignity.
This judgment serves as a precedent, strengthening the legal position of women in matrimonial
disputes and ensuring they are not left without means of sustenance post-divorce. Furthermore,
the ruling aligns with India's constitutional mandate of gender equality and the protection of
women's rights, setting a strong foundation for future cases where personal laws and gender
justice intersect.

10. CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision in Syeda Nazira Khatoon v. Syed Zahiruddin Ahmed Baghdadi is a
landmark ruling reinforcing the financial rights of Muslim women post-divorce. By affirming the
applicability of Section 125 CrPC, the Court ensured that divorced women receive adequate
maintenance irrespective of personal law limitations. This case strengthens the legal framework
for gender justice and highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing religious freedoms with
constitutional rights. The judgment serves as a vital precedent for similar future disputes
involving personal law and maintenance rights.

7
8