VIHALAL MANGALDAS PATEL Vs. MAIBEN VIHALAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the opponent were husband and wife married in the year 1962. In 1971, it appears that they were living in Poona and the wife left him. The husband had filed H. M. P. No. 124 of 1971 in the Civil Court at Poona and an ex parte decree for divorce came to be passed on 12-9-1977. In appeal, the Bombay High Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter. After the remand, again decree for divorce came to be passed on 9-9-1985. The wife preferred M.C.A. No. 573 of 1985 of setting aside that decree. However, the trial Court rejected the same. Therefore, the wife preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 383 of 1989 in the District Court at Poona and applied for interim relief and the appellate Court granted stay of the execution of the decree passed by the trial Court.

(2.) In the meantime, the wife had filed the Criminal Misc. Application No. 47 of 1989 under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code in the Criminal Court at Kalol and by an order dated 29-5-1990, she has been granted maintenance from the husband at the rate of Rs. 450.00 per month from 14-2-1989. It is stated that this amount is now Rs. 500.00 per month and this amount is being paid to her. The wife also filed Civil Misc. Application No. 101 of 1987 in the Civil Court at Mehsana for maintenance under Sec. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and she also filed an application Ex. 6 for interim maintenance. The trial Court granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800/ - per month inclusive of the maintenance awarded by the Criminal Court under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, there is additional maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month. It is this amount which is the subject-matter of the present proceeding.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner-husband submits that Sec. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 applies only in a case where a marriage is subsisting and the wife continues to have the status of a wife. After the divorce, she is not entitled to any maintenance under Sec. 18 of the Act. Secondly, it is submitted that the husband having obtained a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion by the wife, the wife is not entitled to any maintenance from the husband.