CHIRUKANDOTH POUJIL LEELA Vs. MAMBALLY BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to set aside the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry in Crl. R.P. No. 26 of 1983 confirming the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pondicherry in M.C. No. 4 of 1982 dismissing the Petitioner's claim for maintenance.

(2.) The Petitioner is the divorced wife of the Respondent. The divorce was effected by an order of the Court in M.O.P. No. 9 of 1980 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. Subsequent to the divorce, she filed M.C. No. 4 of 1982 on her behalf and on behalf of her six years old minor son for maintenance before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mahe. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate granted maintenance to the minor son in the sum of Rs 80 per month, but dismissed the claim of the Petitioner herein, on the ground that the divorce had been granted against the Petitioner on the ground of desertion of her husband. An earlier application for maintenance filed by the Petitioner during the subsistence of her marriage with the Respondent has also been dismissed on the ground that she wilfully refused to live with her husband. Taking this into consideration the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate refused maintenance to the Petitioner. On revision, the Sessions Judge found that after divorce it was immaterial whether she refused to live with her husband or not, but, however, dismissed the revision on the ground that the Petitioner did not establish that she was unable to maintain herself. It is against this order the Petitioner has come forward with this petition.

(3.) Section 125 of the Crl. P.C., 1973, under which divorced women are entitled to claim maintenance from their husbands, is a bold step in the right direction. Under Explanation (b) to the Section "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. This is one of the most beneficial provisions in recent time, a landmark in social legislation. So long as the divorced woman remains unmarried, her former husband is bound to maintain her. The question of her desertion or refusal to live with her husband does not arise for consideration. It is a statutory obligation imposed upon the husband to maintain his divorced wife so long as she remains unmarried and the only condition is that she must be unable to maintain herself. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in holding that she was entitled to maintenance and the question of her desertion did not arise for consideration.