LANDMARK CASE

Danial Latifi v. Union of India

(2001) 7 SCC 740 · Supreme Court of India · Family law

At a glance

Citation: (2001) 7 SCC 740
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Family law
In one line: The Act was upheld but read to require a reasonable and fair provision for the future, made within the iddat period.

1 Facts

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was challenged as denying fair maintenance.

2 Issue

Does the 1986 Act deprive divorced Muslim women of fair maintenance?

3 What the court decided

The Act was upheld but read to require a reasonable and fair provision for the future, made within the iddat period.

4 Why it matters

It harmonised the Act with Shah Bano and Article 21.

5 Think about it

How does the 'fair provision' reading protect women?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Family law

ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015) 10 SCC 1
Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746
Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188
Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fidaalli Chothia (1979) 2 SCC 316
Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Danamma v. Amar Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.