20 rupees/month alimony: how the 1985 Shah Bano case paved the way for the UCC debate

With Prime Minister Modi pushing for the Unified Civil Code (UCC) at a recent rally in Madhya Pradesh, the 1985 Shah Bano case is back in the spotlight. The case of Mohd Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum is controversial mainly because of the paltry alimony of 20 rupees a month granted to the divorced plaintiff (Shah Bano) under the court order, Times of India reported.

A Muslim woman, Bano, married influential Indore-based lawyer Mohd Ahmed Khan in 1932. In 1975, after 43 years of marriage, Bano was evicted from the home by Khan. During this period he also took a second wife, which is permissible under Islamic law. With no other choice, Bano went to court in Indore in 1978, demanding 500 rupees a month as alimony.

Also Read | ‘Dog policy’: Opposition parties condemn Prime Minister Modi’s UCC remarks in Madhya Pradesh

In 1979 she was offered a paltry sum of 20 rupees a month by the judge. Bano appealed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court to increase the amount of child support, which was increased to Rs 179.20 per month. Mohd Ahmed Khan later challenged this judgment in the Supreme Court.

In 1985, the five-man SC bench, then led by CJI YV Chandrachud, upheld the Madhya Pradesh HC’s decision and also ordered Khan to pay an additional Rs.10,000 to Bano. The same chamber went ahead and condemned the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) for siding with Bano’s husband in the case.

The judges said: “It is also very unfortunate that Article 44 of our Constitution has remained a dead letter. There is no evidence that any official drafted a common civil code for the country. A belief system has taken hold that the Muslim community must lead the way in reforming their personal law. A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by eliminating differing loyalties to laws with conflicting ideologies.”

CJI Chandrachud said at the time: “We understand the difficulties involved in bringing people of different faiths and different beliefs onto a common platform.” But a start must be made for the Constitution to have any meaning. It is beyond the tolerance of a sensitive mind to allow injustice to be suffered when it is so palpable.”

Later in 1986, the Rajiv Gandhi government introduced the Protection of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights in Divorce) Act in place of the UCC. This was done mainly to reverse the effects of the Shah Bano ruling.

In the 1995 Sarla-Mudgal ruling, the Supreme Court was more direct in insisting that the legislature implement the UCC. “Where more than 80 percent of citizens are already covered by the codified law of persons, there is no justification for continuing to put off the introduction of the ‘single civil code’ for all citizens in the territory of India,” it said.

In the 2003 case of John Vallimattom, the Supreme Court again emphasized the achievement of the objective set out in Article 44.

This year on March 29th the SC had sorted out a PIL trying to pass the UCC. The Supreme Court said: “Appealing to this court to enact the UCC is like moving the wrong forum. It falls under the exclusive competence of Parliament.”