Woman other than wife entitled to maintenance?

Very interesting discussion.  ESIS, Adv. Kalaiselvan, Adv. Chandrasekhar, Adv. Rakhi, Amit, Dr. Vashista, Stanley and Adv. Roy - all the real gurus on the Family Section contributing in a lively discussion. 

Originally posted by : Adv. Chandrasekhar
	In addition to D.V. Act, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she is entitled.  Read Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah III(2013)DMC 518 (Supreme Court).  The date of judgment is 18.10.2013.  In Pyla Mutyamma case also Supreme Court held about that validity of the marriage is not a ground to deny the maintenance. III(2013)DMC 795 (SC).  But Jharkhand H.C. refused to give maintenance other than wife in Ram Kumar Sahu's case.  Decision dated 05.04.2012 - DMC(III)2012 - 443.  As the supreme court unequivocallly held, it appears the woman other than wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.p.C.

Just as there are Women centric laws so do we have our  women centric  Chandu . If you go through his history of replies you would notice that he would woo a women to such an extent that she would be flying in the air as though she has already won the battle before it has been started.

Every case is unique in its own aspects . Hence stating the above judgements is not necessairly  applicable in each and every case .

Bloody Idiot Stanley, what did you do in this posting - Copy pasting the bare Act?  You are sham.  It is India, that is why you quacks are giving legal advice.  If it is any foreign country, you would be put behind the bars for doing professional advice without having legal advice.  In some other post, you idiot, responded to me you have fundamental right to give legal advice.  Third rated rat, do you know what is fundamental right?  It is restricted under Article 19(2) of Constitution. As per that you idiots, without having professional qualification are not entitled to give legal advice, medical adivce etc.  So, b*st*rds, appear in your cases as party in person and botch up your cases and do not spoil the cases of others with your .....brains.

According to @Hema the only law officer of an Independent country,

What Is fundamental right according to her?

Ans: anytime bark like a khujliwali kutiya

Treat all men like her slaves.

When ever she feels exhausted and sucked , she appears and barks specially on @stanley And now after this post she will bark at me.

She likes two names very much:

1. Bastard

2. Quacks

A/t her A person who is tenth fail , lost in other profession and lastly any how manages to get degree of LLB to write before his or her name as ADV. is only legal person to give answers and rest of the person who is highly qualified having all reputed degrees, well sucess in his prior career and lastly due to one sided law he forced to learn law like anything and even better than what llb will teach anybody Is not entitled to give answers.Lol on her thoughts.

 In her eye all those persons are b*st*rds who have much more practical and legal knowledge than these sh*t types of lawyers who is nothing but a road side beggar wearing black coat and having a llb degree to ask legal beg to encash women friendly laws.

Feel pity on her...!

HER logic to tell that in foreign if this would happen and that would have happen then these person would be sent to prisons..making me to laugh

She is forgetting that in foreign no laws are gender biased. So no point of discussion would have happen either. So her above comment is like a tresspass on the image of a person who is very much entitled under FR article of constitution of India.

PS: If you know law better than me Then come on lets begin...

ESIS

Sec.125 Cr. PC corresponds to old section 488(1)-(5), which has been transposed towards the begining of the Code for making certain changes of the power of Magistrate for granting interim relief and for determination of the quantum of maintenance.but the scope of old sec 488 viz.,"maintenance of wives, children and parents " has not been changed as yet. The intention of the legislature was described in the related Bill and in the enactment as gazetted in the Government of India Gazette which expressly states that the enactment is meant to protect the pecuniary condition of 'WIVES,CHILDREN, AND PARENTS"   So only wives can get benefits of sec 125Cr.P.C.

IN SUB SECTION (1) (a) - The cases of minor and major children have been separated in Cls.(b),(c);  and in clause (b), the words "whether married or not", have been added, in the case of 'minor children', which expression has been explained in explanation (a) [ vide-41st Rep. of the Commission vol.1, paras, 1-36.10.]

IN SUB-SECTION 1,- Clause (a) a wife would be entitled to maintenance only if she is "unable to maintain herself" [ This condition was inserted by the joint committee on the Bill of 1970 (p.xiii on Cl.125)] 

Expl. (b) has been added to include a divorced wife, so long as she does not remarry. [ This condition was inserted by the joint committee on the Bill of 1970 (p.xiii on Cl.125)]

In view of the above a concubine or live-in-partner or a mistress cannot avail the benefit of  Sec.125 Cr.PC for maintenance.except in the case of minor children from their womb.

till date even supreme court has not decided about the maintenance against live-in relationship to women falls under 

as read in apex court judgement 

in Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) [(1991) 2 SCC

375], a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that Section 125 of the Code of 1973 is meant to achieve a social purpose and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. Explaining the meaning of the word ‘wife’ the Court held: 

“…The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. When an attempt is made by the husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife depicting her as a kept-mistress on the specious plea that he was already married, the court would insist on strict proof of the earlier marriage. The term ‘wife’ in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, includes a woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The woman not having the legal status of a wife is thus brought within the inclusive definition of the term ‘wife’ consistent with the objective... “

Originally posted by : hema
	Bloody Idiot Stanley, what did you do in this posting - Copy pasting the bare Act?  You are sham.  It is India, that is why you quacks are giving legal advice.  If it is any foreign country, you would be put behind the bars for doing professional advice without having legal advice.  In some other post, you idiot, responded to me you have fundamental right to give legal advice.  Third rated rat, do you know what is fundamental right?  It is restricted under Article 19(2) of Constitution. As per that you idiots, without having professional qualification are not entitled to give legal advice, medical adivce etc.  So, b*st*rds, appear in your cases as party in person and botch up your cases and do not spoil the cases of others with your .....brains.

After looking at Hema's ranting or barking post and looking at the profanities she uses i have no other option but to state that she requires serious medical help or treatment.  

People who are experiencing severe symptoms of psychosis may spend time in hospital.

, sometimes a person  may not accept that they are unwell and may not want to have the treatment they need. Because of this, people are sometimes  admitted to hospital against their will  . People can only be admitted to hospital against their wishes if it is in the interests of their health and safety, or to protect other people.

Now bringing into question Hema personality ? Why cant she Advise or Debate on the concerned subject or topic ? Had she had the knowledge  she would have advised or debated on the concerned topic rather than walk away from it ? and she is a person with multiple names on this Forum.

At the end of the day all @ Hema  all she can do is rant and rant and rant and keep farting like a pig and yelling like a donkey Hee Haw , Hee Haw ....        and than disappear from this Forum only to appear and rant at me once again when she goes into depression and gets hysterical or when she is in an unstable condition .

Now taking into consideration Hemas post and words below . 

" If it is any foreign country, you would be put behind the bars for doing professional advice without having legal advice. " 

See the english used by @ Hema Law officer  "doing professional advise without having legal advise "

@ Hema is not even aware how to frame sentences in present past or future tense i dont know from which school she has studied . 

This sentance could have been framed as "giving professional advise without having legal knowledge " 

Anyway all we can do is pray for Mrs Hema to get well soon .