BHANWAR SINGH Vs. KUNDAN KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order passed by the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The learned District Judge, Jaipur vide order dated 5th May, 1984, restored the case to its original number and set aside the decree passed against the petitioner.

(2.) SMT. Kundan Kanwar wife of the petitioner moved an application under Section 18 (2) (a), (b) & (d) of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 and prayed for grant of maintenance and other reliefs.

(3.) SEC. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. Under SEC. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there is a provision for maintenance of the wife. Under SEC. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. Under SEC. 23 of the said Act the amount of maintenance is determined taking into consideration the position and status of the parties, reasonable wants of the claimant etc. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs. State of Bombay (3), in para 31, held as under:- "it is not necessary and indeed not permissible to construe the Indian Penal Code at the present day in accordance with the notions of Criminal jurisdiction prevailing at the time when the Code was enacted. The notions relating to this matter have very considerably changed between then and now during nearly a century that has elapsed. It is legitimate to construe the Code with reference to the modern needs, wherever this is permissible, unless there is anything in the Code or in any particular section to indicate the contrary. "