---
title: "Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) — Definition"
description: "Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) upheld the Muslim Women Act 1986 but read it to guarantee fair maintenance beyond iddat—key UPSC GS2 polity judgment."
url: "https://modeldiplomat.com/learn/glossary/danial-latifi-v-union-of-india-2001"
---

[New](https://modeldiplomat.com/)

#

Model Diplomat Research Team · Last reviewed June 22, 2026

TL;DR

- Danial Latifi v.
- Union of India (2001) is a Supreme Court of India ruling upholding the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 while interpreting it to secure fair, lifelong provision for divorced Muslim women.
- How did Danial Latifi differ from the Shah Bano judgment?
- What does Section 3(1)(a) of the 1986 Act require after this ruling?
- Did the Court strike down the Muslim Women Act 1986?

[Civil Service & Diplomatic Exams](https://modeldiplomat.com/learn/civil-services/glossary)Updated June 22, 2026

Go beyond the definition

## Research Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) like a delegate

Model Diplomat's AI drafts position papers, speeches, and country research with real sources — built for MUN and politics students.

## Positions at a glance

### Supporters

The interpretive crux lay in Section 3(1)(a) of the 1986 Act, which provides that a divorced woman is entitled to "a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband." The petitioners read the phrase narrowly; the State and intervenors argued it merely fixed the time by which payment must be completed. The Court adopted the latter, broader reading. It held that the words "reasonable and fair provision and maintenance" are distinct concepts: the obligation to make and pay such provision must be discharged within the iddat period, but the provision itself must be sufficient to support the woman for her entire future life, not merely for the three months of iddat. The liability is thus not temporally truncated—what is time-bound is the moment of payment, not the span the payment must cover.

### Opponents

Controversy persists over whether the judgment honoured or overrode legislative intent, since many parliamentarians in 1986 understood the Act to limit liability to iddat. Critics argue the Court rewrote the statute; defenders contend it merely chose the constitutionally compliant reading available on the text. Debate also continues on the interplay between Section 3 of the 1986 Act and Section 125 CrPC—whether a woman elects between them or may pursue both—an issue the later Shabana Bano line of cases addressed. The 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Mohd Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, reaffirming that Section 125 CrPC applies to divorced Muslim women alongside the 1986 Act, demonstrates that the equilibrium Danial Latifi struck remains live and contested.

## Research it like a delegate

Research on modeldiplomat.com

## Ask a follow-up about Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001)

Open a cited briefing in Model Diplomat search — timelines, positions, and sources you can use in committee or exam answers.

[Start research on Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001)](https://modeldiplomat.com/search?q=Explain%20Danial%20Latifi%20v.%20Union%20of%20India%20\(2001\)%20%E2%80%94%20key%20dates%2C%20actors%2C%20positions%2C%20and%20sources)

Example

In Danial Latifi v. Union of India, decided 28 September 2001, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Muslim Women Act 1986 yet read Section 3 to require a divorced Muslim woman's husband to provide for her entire future, not only the iddat period.

Keep learning

## Go deeper than the definition

[Explore all Civil Service & Diplomatic Exams lessons](https://modeldiplomat.com/learn/civil-services)[Test yourself with a quiz](https://modeldiplomat.com/learn/glossary/quiz/civil-services)

## Take Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) beyond the glossary

Ask the AI research engine built for diplomacy — get briefings, position papers, and speeches with sources you can cite in committee.