BROUGHT  TO YOU  BY   RAJEEV BHATJIWALE

MST.NOOR BANO V / S IBRAHIM KHAN 2001(1) J.L.J. 176

Where a Muslim woman files an application for maintenance under section 125, and her husband in reply states that he has divorced his wife, the only remedy available to the wife is to file an application under  Muslim woman [protection of rights on divorce act]

1.GYANWATI BAI  V/S BHAGCHAND -1999(1) J L J 112 =

Amount of maintenance for wife for food  clothing any shelter -even Rs 500 are not sufficient.  Husband having agricultural land can be presumed be able to provide sufficient maintenance to wife .  Wife grunted maintenance at the rate of Rs 500 per month under old provision May still apply under section 127 to enhance the same under the amended provisions.

2. SMT. KUNTI BAI V/S  ALAKHRAM -1999(1) J L J 89==

Wife having sufficient means to satisfy her needs filing petition for maintenance after 12 years -- the delay not explained the petition rightly dismissed

3.SUDEEP CHAUDHARY V / S RADHA CHAUDHARY -AIR 1999 SC 536

The wife filed an application under section 125 of the criminal procedure code for maintenance which was awarded at the rate of Rs 350 whereas in the proceedings under the Hindu marriage act she was granted an alimony at the rate of Rs 600 the amount awarded under section 125 of the criminal procedure code was adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings and was not to be given over and above the same. 

DWARKA PRASAD SATPATHI V/S BIDYUT PRABHA DEVI -AIR1999 SC3348

Validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceedings under section 125 is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties the standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as it is required in a trial of offence under section 494.  If it can be shown that the applicant and the respondent  have lived together as husband and wife the court `can  presume that they are legally wedded spouses .once it is admitted that the marriage procedure was followed  then it is not necessary to further enquire into whether the said procedure was complete as per  the Hindu rites in the  proceedings under section 125

KIRTIKANT VADODARIA V/S STATE OF GUJRAT AND OTHRS  1996 SCC [CRI] 762

The expression "mother" and "stepmother"  have not been defined in CRPC, these expressions have also not been defined by the Hindu law, it is clear that there is inherent distinction between the status of a mother and stepmother and they are two distinct and separate entities and could not be equated The existence of various kinds of relations in our society was not something of which parliament was ignorant when the new code of 1973 was introduced .Even the divorced woman had been included in the expression "wife".However "stepmother" was not included under section 125 [1] [d].therefore it is Clear that the expression "mother" appearing in the clause [d] of section 125 [1] means and is referable only to the real or natural mother, who has actually given birth to the child .it cannot be said that the term Mother includes a woman who has the status of a "stepmother" by reason of her lawful marriage  with the father of the person sought to be made liable

ABDUL RASHID (Dr) V/S Mst. FARIDA 1994 J.L.J. 381 

The wife had filed an  application for maintenance of herself and her minor daughter, during the pendency of the application the husband gave TALAK to his wife and filing an application in the magistrates court informing his wife that he had given TALAK to her.A Muslim wife unable to maintain herself  can make an application under section 125 CR PC but the moment she is divorced the provisions of the Muslim woman Act would come into play and her application would be governed by the provisions of the act . It is only when the divorced Muslim  woman makes an application under section 3 [2] that the question of parties opting under section 5 of the act can arise

KRISHNA JAIN V/S DHAN RAJ JAIN 1991 J.L.J. 405

Section 125 [2] of the criminal procedure code clearly indicates that the amount shall be payable from the date of the order or if so ordered  from the date of the application for maintenance Over-ruling    the decision in LACHHMANI V/S RAMU 1983 M P W N 148and  MOHD. INAYATULLAV/S SALMA BANO 1985 MPWN 365 .There can be no dispute on the point that ordinarily payment of maintenance under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure has to be ordered not from the date of the application, but From the date of the order.However if it is from the date of the application it should be supported by reasons.Now the law is that the wife can claim the maintenance on the date of application and the husband may deny it,in such cases the magistrate should essentially enquire the sources from which the life maintained herself and her child, if any, the conduct of the parties doing the proceedings and other relevant matter will decide the date ,from which the maintenance may be granted

PHULO BAI JOGE V/S BEERO 1991 J.L.J. 541

Unlike matrimonial proceedings, where the strict proof of marriage is essential, in a proceeding under section 125 criminal procedure code such a standard of proof is not necessary and it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy .The law further is that where a man and woman who are living together as a husband and wife and the husband also acknowledged the woman to be his wife and relatives also treated them as husband and wife, assumption arises that the woman is the legally wedded wife.

DURGA SINGH LODHI V / S PREMABAI 1990 J L J 307

Ss 125(1) &125 (3) ;-the object of section 125 is to compile a person with sufficient means to maintain his  wife , means does not signify on the visible means like a real property, income estate on a definite employment,but includes capacity to earn money .A healthy and able bodied person but without any property, must be held as having sufficient means , he cannot escape his liability 

The Order under section 125 ,is enforced by issue of a distress warrant, if in spite of issuance of such warrant the allowance remains unpaid, an order for imprisonment under section 125 can be passed

In BHULE V/S GOMTI BAI 1981 J L J 437,it was observed that even issue of distress warrant is not mandatory, and if the attitude of the husband shows that the amount may not be paid even after issue of distress warrant , directing him in imprisonment is justified. Imprisonment is a means of enforcement and an order of imprisonment can be passed if there has been negligence to pay maintenance. All that is required is that person has failed without sufficient reasons to comply with the order.

[ Home ] [ Up ]

Copyright © 2001 rajeev bhatjiwale
Last modified: April 09, 2001