Divorced Muslim wife maintenance cannot be cancelled unless divorce payment is a real substitute for continuing support.

A divorced Muslim wife's maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be cancelled under Section 127(3)(b) unless the amount received on divorce under customary or personal law is a real and sufficient substitute for maintenance. The Court construed Sections 125 to 127 as a scheme to prevent destitution and held that mahr or iddat payment must bear a realistic relation to maintenance liability; a nominal or illusory sum is insufficient. Applying Bai Tahira as binding law under Article 141, the Court rejected the view that mere payment on divorce automatically extinguishes the maintenance entitlement, and held that continuing liability remained where the payment did not discharge that statutory purpose.

---

---

Issues: Whether a divorced Muslim wife's maintenance order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be cancelled under Section 127(3)(b) on the basis of payment of mahr and iddat dues, and whether such payment must be a real and sufficient substitute for maintenance.

Analysis: Section 127(3)(b) was construed in the light of the scheme and purpose of Sections 125 to 127, which are designed to prevent destitution and secure maintenance for wives unable to maintain themselves. The payment contemplated by Section 127(3)(b) must be a sum received on divorce under customary or personal law and must bear a realistic relation to maintenance, functioning as a genuine substitute and not as a token or illusory payment. A nominal amount paid as mahr or iddat dues does not satisfy the statutory requirement if it is not sufficient to do duty for maintenance allowance. The earlier ruling in Bai Tahira was applied as binding law under Article 141, and the contrary approach of treating the payment as adequate merely because divorce had occurred was rejected.

Conclusion: The cancellation of the maintenance order was not justified, as the amount paid was wholly insufficient to displace the husband's continuing liability under Section 125.

Final Conclusion: The divorce payment did not extinguish the statutory maintenance entitlement, and the appellant remained entitled to maintenance.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 127(3)(b) to cancel a maintenance order, the amount received on divorce under customary or personal law must be a real and sufficient substitute for maintenance and not an illusory or nominal payment.

---