The Patna High Court has refused to interfere with a Family Court order that directed Md. Murshid Alam to pay his wife, Nazia Shaheen, a monthly maintenance of ₹7,000. The court dismissed Alam’s criminal revision petition, where he insisted that their marriage had ended years ago through a mutual divorce settlement.
Read in Hindi
Background
Nazia Shaheen and Md. Murshid Alam married in December 2010 under Muslim rites. Within weeks, Shaheen alleged she was mistreated by her husband and in- laws, forcing her to return to her parental home. She claimed she had no source of income, while her husband, employed abroad in Singapore, was well- off but neglected her needs. She sought maintenance of ₹15,000 per month.
Also Read : Supreme Court Quashes Separate Trial of Haryana MLA Mamman Khan, Orders Joint Hearing in Nuh Violence Case
Alam, however, contested these claims. He argued that Shaheen barely stayed with him, moved about independently, and even questioned her character. According to him, they had settled their disputes in 2013 through a mubarat (mutual divorce) agreement, for which he paid ₹1,00,000 covering alimony, den mohar and iddat expenses. On this ground, he said he had no further legal duty to support her.
Also Read : Supreme Court Declares Beggars' Homes Must Ensure Dignity, Slams Negligence in Delhi Cholera Deaths Case
Court's Observations
Justice Jitendra Kumar carefully examined the case records. He pointed out that Alam had failed to produce solid evidence proving a legally valid divorce decree. A compromise petition from 2013 was filed, but it was never properly exhibited, nor was Shaheen given a chance to contest its genuineness.
"The so- called compromise cannot by itself dissolve the marriage without proper legal endorsement,'' the bench observed.
The judge also highlighted that even if Alam's claim of divorce were accepted, under Section 125 Cr.PC and as per landmark rulings like Shah Bano and Danial Latifi, a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance if she has not remarried and cannot support herself.
Also Read : Madhya Pradesh High Court Halts Live Streaming of Criminal Cases Amid Misuse Allegations
On Shaheen's financial status, the court noted she had no income of her own. Alam, on the other hand, was educated, able- bodied, and previously employed with a decent salary abroad.
''An able-bodied husband cannot evade responsibility on mere excuses,'' the order emphasized.
Decision
In the end, the High Court upheld the Family Court's direction requiring Md. Murshid Alam to pay ₹7,000 per month to Nazia Shaheen. The judge dismissed Alam's revision petition, calling it ''devoid of merit.''
With this, the court reaffirmed that maintenance is not charity but a legal obligation, ensuring no woman is left destitute merely because her husband claims separation without proof.
Case Title: Md. Murshid Alam vs. Nazia Shaheen
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1099 of 2019
