Safiya Sultana v State of UP
Rule established
S.125 CrPC (now S.144 BNSS) is a secular remedy available to a Muslim wife irrespective of a pending personal law proceeding; the two are concurrent and there is no bar on cumulation.
Facts
- Safiya Sultana filed under S.125 CrPC before the Magistrate. A parallel personal law suit for restitution was pending. Her husband argued that S.125 was unavailable because the personal law proceeding was adequate.
Issue
- Whether S.125 CrPC (now S.144 BNSS) is available to a Muslim wife where a parallel personal law proceeding is pending.
Held
- S.125 CrPC is a secular remedy directed at preventing destitution and is available irrespective of personal law proceedings. The two remedies serve different purposes and are concurrent.
Ratio Decidendi
(1) S.125 is a secular remedy of general application, not a personal law remedy. (2) A pending personal law suit does not bar or suspend it. (3) The principle of Molly Joseph v George Sebastian (1996) applies to Muslim wives equally.
How to use it in an exam
- Cite for cumulation of S.125/S.144 BNSS with Muslim personal law proceedings
- Reinforces the universal application of the secular maintenance remedy
- Pair with Molly Joseph for a cross-religion cumulation argument
Source
Source: 2021 SCC OnLine All 655
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.