Search and discuss with your Advocate following;
1. Dr.G.Sivaraman Vs. P.Muthukumari on 5 September, 2013 from Madras High Court
2. Rohtash Singh vs. Ramendri (Smt) and Others {2000 (3) SCC 180}
Question of Law - the issue arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is as to whether the wife against whom decree for divorce has been passed on account of her deserting the husband, can claim maintenance allowance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and how far the plea of desertion to be treated to be an effective plea in support of husband’s refusal to pay her maintenance allowance.
Held - "The Claim for maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P.C. before divorce is based on the subsistence of marriage while claim for maintenance of a divorced wife after divorce is based on the foundation provided by Explanation (b) to Sub-section (1) of Section 125, Cr. P.C. and as a wife, she is entitled to maintenance unless she suffers from any of the disabilities indicated in Section 125(4) and in another capacity, namely, as a divorced woman, she is again entitled to claim maintenance from the person of whom she was once the wife and as a woman after divorce becomes a destitute and if she cannot maintain herself or remains unmarried, the man who was, once her husband continues to be under a statutory duty and obligation to provide maintenance to her.
While answering so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also agreed with the contention raised on the side of the husband therein that since the decree of divorce was passed on the ground of desertion of the husband by the respondent-wife, she would not be entitled for maintenance for any period prior to the passing of the decree under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that "To that extent, learned Counsel appears to be correct". However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the award of maintenance for the period prior to the date of divorce in that case for the reason that the period is too short to be interfered with."
3. Also argue with proof of her education and past work experience that the respondent-wife was - is gainfully employed for the past XYZ years, as such, she is disentitled to claim any maintenance since the date of her employment.
[In your other duplicate Post in this forum I donot subscribe to the very opening observation of Laxmi Kant Joshi maybe he missed reading that the earlier interim was awarded under S. 24 HMA. which has now no relevance in S. 125 CrPC as proceedings have not even started under The Code]
[Last reply]
