Shah Bano case explained | How one woman’s fight redefined India’s legal history

Yami Gautam and Emraan Hashmi's Haq is set to release on Nov 7, and before the movie releases in theatres, it has been making a lot of controversy over the subject that this movie addresses, which is the Shah Bano Begum case. So what it is and how it redefined India’s legal history?

Directed by Suparn Verma and written by Reshu Nath, the highly anticipated courtroom drama is inspired by two things: the 1985 Supreme Court's historic verdict on the case and the book titled Bano, Bharat Ki Beti, as said by the producer's lawyer Ajay Bagadiya in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The movie has been the topic of conversation as it is based on one of the landmark cases of Indian history that changed the lives of Muslim women in India forever.

Haq: Yami Gautam and Emraan Hashmi's courtroom drama

In the courtroom drama, Gautam plays the role of Shazia Bano, the woman who fought for her rights in times when even thinking of standing against one’s husband was seen as a nightmare.

Still from Haq Photograph: ()

The story of the movie begins in 1967 when a young Bano Begum falls in love with Ahmad Khan, a lawyer. After years of blissful marriage, the couple’s relationship hits a rough phase when her husband gets married again. However, after she is forced to step out of her husband's house, she is soon given triple talaq. While her husband helps her financially for a period of time, he eventually stops, leaving Bano in financial distress. Soon, she moves to court, asking her husband to provide maintenance.

What was the Shah Bano case?

The Shah Bano case was a landmark legal case in India that highlighted the conflict between personal religious laws and the rights of women under secular law.

Shah Bano, a 62-year-old woman from Indore, had been married to advocate Mohammed Ahmed Khan for over four decades. Her husband divorced her and initially provided a small amount of financial support for her and their five children. However, he eventually stopped providing any maintenance, leaving Shah Bano in financial distress.

Picture of Shah Bano Photograph: (X)

Left with no other option, in 1978, Bano filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows a wife, child, or parent to claim maintenance from the husband or son. The legal battle become the difficulty when the religion came in between. Under Muslim personal law, a husband is required to provide maintenance to his divorced wife only during the iddat period (a waiting period of approximately a few months that a women must observe post divorce or the death of the husband). Shah Bano demanded that her husband provide maintenance beyond the iddat period for the rest of her life, saying that she's not able to sustain herself.

The trial court ruled in favor of Shah Bano, and directed her husband to pay her a monthly maintenance. Later, the amount was increase after she applied the appeal in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. However, Mohammed Ahmed Khan challenged the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court of India, saying that under Muslim personal law, he's not obliged to pay a maintainence fee to his ex-wife. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board supported Khan’s point, stating that courts could not interfere in matters governed by Muslim Personal Law.

What Supreme Court ruled?

On April 23, 1985, the Supreme Court delivered the landmark verdict in the Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum & Ors.

Delivered by Chief Justice Y.C. Chandrachud, the verdict upheld Shah Bano’s right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), irrespective of the woman's religion. The court ordered Khan to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 179.20 to Shah Bano.

In the landmark ruling, the Court stated that the right to maintenance is a matter of social justice, and that personal law cannot override the secular law, which applies uniformly to all religions.