Kerala High Court Upholds Limitation Act's Application to Muslim Women's Maintenance Claims

Division Bench affirms civil nature of Section 3 proceedings under the 1986 Act, applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to maintenance claims filed by divorced Muslim women under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Division Bench, consisting of Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian, JJ., delivered the judgment on 27th November 2025, emphasizing the civil nature of such proceedings, despite their adjudication in a Magistrate’s court.

The case emerged from a petition filed by Safia P.M., challenging the dismissal of her maintenance claim by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala, which was upheld by the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. The crux of the matter was the applicability of the Limitation Act to her claim, filed nine years post-divorce, which was initially deemed time-barred. However, the Sessions Court later found her claim timely, given it was filed within three years of her husband's refusal to provide maintenance.

The High Court, addressing an intra-court reference, clarified that proceedings under Section 3 of the 1986 Act are inherently civil, thus falling within the purview of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. This distinction was pivotal in affirming the judgment in Hassainar v. Raziya, which held that the limitation period specified under Article 137 applies to such applications, a view supported by the Division Bench.

The judgment highlighted the judicial interpretation that while the enforcement mechanisms under the 1986 Act might involve processes under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the nature of the right claimed remains civil. The Bench underscored the fallacy in viewing such proceedings as criminal, primarily due to the adjudication being conducted by Magistrates. The ruling delineates the civil character of the right to reasonable and fair maintenance, reinforcing the intent of the 1986 Act to protect the rights of divorced Muslim women.

In its detailed order, the Bench acknowledged the procedural overlap with criminal law but maintained that this does not alter the fundamental nature of the proceedings. It further directed the matter back to the learned Single Judge to resolve the issue of the husband's capacity to pay, a point left undecided in the previous sessions.

The judgment sets a precedent, emphasizing the importance of timely claims under the 1986 Act and clarifying the legal framework governing such proceedings. It also serves as a directive for future cases, reinforcing the civil law principles applicable to maintenance claims by divorced Muslim women, ensuring their rights are upheld within the stipulated limitation period.

Bottom Line:

Applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to claims under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 affirmed - Proceedings under Section 3 of the 1986 Act are civil in nature despite adjudication being carried out in a Magistrate's court.

Statutory provision(s): Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 Section 3, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 125.

Safia P.M. v. State of Kerala, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2815734