Last Updated: March 08, 2023, 20:10 IST
Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh. (Image: Reuters/PTI file)
It all started with Jairam Ramesh’s tweets on International Women’s Day, highlighting how Congress made equal voting rights for women a reality in India in 1951.
Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in a stern retort to Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Wednesday cited the famous Shah Bano case to underline how the grand old party let her down to keep a certain “vote bank happy”.
It all started with Ramesh’s tweets on International Women’s Day, where he highlighted how Congress made equal voting rights for women a reality in India in 1951-52.
In a couple of tweets, Ramesh also wrote about how Congress amended the Constitution to provide one-third reservation for women in panchayats and municipal bodies, and how it also got the Women’s Reservation Bill passed in Rajya Sabha.
In 1920 women (mostly white) in the US were given equal voting rights. In 1928 women in the UK were given that right. That same year the INC committed itself to equal voting rights for women – which became a reality in 1951-52.1/n#IWD2023— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) March 8, 2023
Hours after Ramesh’s tweets, Sitharaman replied that the Congress let Shah Bano down. “Jairam, Shah Bano was let down by the INC for keeping a vote bank happy. She was a woman too,” she wrote.
The finance minister’s reply was attached with a Hindustam Times article written by Shah Bano’s youngest son Jameel Ahmed Khan, who recalled the tough times his mother faced after the historic Supreme Court judgment.
What is the Shah Bano case?
The Shah Bano case is considered one of the legal milestones in Muslim women’s battle for protection of their rights.
Shah Bano, a 62-year-old woman had in April 1978 filed a petition demanding maintenance from her divorced husband, Mohammed Ahmad Khan, an affluent lawyer.
The two were married in 1932 and had five children. After 14 years of marriage, Khan married the second time and Shah Bano lived with him and his second wife in the same house for years. But later, Khan asked Shah Bano to move out and stopped giving her maintenance.
Shah Bano then filed a maintenance claim for herself and her five children before the court under Section 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section mandates a man to provide for his wife during the marriage and after divorce too if she isn’t able to provide for herself.
Her husband, however, contested the claim on the grounds that it was in conflict with the Muslim Personal Law in India.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board supported Khan’s argument saying that courts cannot interfere in the matters of Muslim Personal Law.
The Supreme Court, however, upheld the decision of the high court that directed maintenance to Shah Bano. The top court also increased the amount of maintenance.
The verdict had set off a big political storm with the then Rajiv Gandhi Congress government overturning the SC verdict. It said the maintenance period can only be made liable for the iddat period.
Shah Bano eventually withdrew her maintenance claim.
Read all the Latest Politics News here