Fair and reasonable provision for divorced Muslim women must be secured within iddat, with post-iddat support preserved.

Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was construed to require a former husband to make and pay, within the iddat period, a reasonable and fair provision for the divorced wife's future, including support extending beyond iddat. Section 4 was treated as a separate post-iddat support mechanism against relatives and, where necessary, the Wakf Board. On that construction, the Act was held consistent with Articles 14, 15 and 21 because it preserves a divorced Muslim woman's entitlement to support and dignity rather than extinguishing it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 requires the former husband to make a reasonable and fair provision for the divorced wife's future, including maintenance beyond the iddat period, within the iddat period. (ii) Whether the Act, as construed, is constitutionally valid and consistent with Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 requires the former husband to make a reasonable and fair provision for the divorced wife's future, including maintenance beyond the iddat period, within the iddat period.

Analysis: Section 3(1)(a) uses distinct expressions, namely, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance, and requires both to be made and paid within the iddat period. The provision was construed as obligating the husband to arrange, within that period, for the divorced wife's future needs, and not as limiting the provision itself to the duration of iddat. Section 4 was read as operating only after iddat against relatives and, where necessary, the Wakf Board, while Section 3(1)(a) remains an obligation enforceable against the former husband.

Conclusion: The husband's liability under Section 3(1)(a) extends to making a reasonable and fair provision for the wife's future, including maintenance beyond iddat, and it must be discharged within the iddat period.

Issue (ii): Whether the Act, as construed, is constitutionally valid and consistent with Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Act was read as preserving the divorced Muslim woman's entitlement to a fair and reasonable provision from the former husband, while also creating a further regime under Section 4 if she remains unable to maintain herself after iddat. On that construction, the Act was held to codify the principle earlier recognized in Shah Bano and to avoid deprivation of a divorced Muslim woman's right to support in a manner that would offend equality or dignity. A construction that upholds constitutionality was preferred over one that would render the Act invalid.

Conclusion: The Act is constitutionally valid and does not offend Articles 14, 15 or 21.

Final Conclusion: The divorced Muslim woman's right to a fair and reasonable provision from her former husband is preserved, the post-iddat support mechanism under the Act is operative, and the challenge to the Act fails.

Ratio Decidendi: A welfare statute affecting divorced Muslim women must be construed so as to require the former husband to secure a fair and reasonable provision for the wife's future within the iddat period, and such a construction sustains the Act against constitutional challenge.

---