Does divorced wife can claim maintenance under 125crpc after mutual conset divorce?
vaijanath
(Querist) 19 December 2015
This query is : Resolved
I have got divorce by mutual consent 13 B of hindu marriage act.
Now my ex wife has filed maintenance under crpc 125.
Is it maintenable in court of law?
Because section 4 of act 125 says that she is not entiteled to maintenance if both are living saperately by mutual consent.
(.4 No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.)
I am attaching one case law
No maintenance to wife living separately by mutual consent: HCSaurabh Malik/TNSA perusal of Section 125(4) of the CrPC reveals that wife residing separately by mutual consent is not entitled to maintenance. — High CourtChandigarh, February 12The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a wife residing separately by mutual consent is not entitled to maintenance.Justice Paramjeet Singh has also ruled that a wife is not entitled to maintenance when the couple is residing separately after divorce by mutual consent, and has accepted lump sum amount of maintenance as a full and final settlement.With this, the HC has laid to rest the controversy on the entitlement of a divorced wife for maintenance till she remarries. The ruling came on a petition by a woman for maintenance. The marriage between the petitioner and her husband (now divorced) was solemnised on November 4, 1996. Initially, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. But during pendency of the petition, the parties jointly moved for divorce by mutual consent.During proceedings, a compromise was struck and the wife got Rs 1 lakh from the husband towards “full and final claim of maintenance”.Her counsel contended that a divorced wife was entitled to maintenance till she remarried, even if the divorce was with mutual consent and money was received in lump sum in lieu of maintenance as full and final settlement.The husband’s counsel submitted that maintenance was paid by the respondent to the petitioner in final settlement.Referring to Section 125(4) of the CrPC, Justice Paramjeet Singh said a wife was not entitled to maintenance, or even interim maintenance and proceeding expenses, from her husband if she was “living in adultery”, or refused to live with her husband without sufficient reason or if the couple was living separately by mutual consent.“The case of the respondent is on higher pedestal. Firstly, because the petitioner got divorce by mutual consent and thereafter she is residing separately by mutual consent. Secondly, she accepted a lump sum maintenance as final settlement and that stands paid.”Justice Singh concluded: “After divorce by mutual consent and when the parties are residing separately and lump sum maintenance as final settlement has already been accepted, petitioner-wife is not entitled to maintenance.”
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 20 December 2015
Can U mention the contents of the MCD filed?
P. Venu
(Expert) 20 December 2015
What is the opinion of your advocate?
alexander
(Expert) 20 December 2015
was she paid maintenance,expenses for separate accommodation and legal expenses till the decision of the court. it may be worthwhile having a look at your petition, wife's WS and the court's decision
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 20 December 2015
If it was a term of MCD, she can claim.
Guest
(Expert) 20 December 2015
I doubt that this is not your personal problem, rather an academic problem you want to solve with the help of experts.
Otherwise, had that been your real problem, there was no need for you to attach any case law for discussion, had you discussed about the opinion of your own lawyer along with complete background of the case.
alexander
(Expert) 20 December 2015
Fully agree wifh Shri Dhingra ji
vaijanath
(Querist) 20 December 2015
No i m going through the case filed in maharashtra
There is vast diffrence of opinion about the case......then why should d court should take the case on file
Only to save the torture to face the case i am putting facts of d said law for your opinion and same time finding case laws to support my cases
Thats it
Guest
(Expert) 20 December 2015
Mr. Vaijanath,
Not convinced when you have failed to give description of the background of the case and the opinion of your own lawyer, who fought for you. Also, discussion on case law is quite irrelavant in the absence of case history.
Had you any problem in reality, you could well have come forward with the case history instead of jutifying yourself about posting extracts of the case law.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 20 December 2015
He is not comming out with true facts.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 20 December 2015
query too long.
vaijanath
(Querist) 21 December 2015
Pls read the query......what i have asked is clear
It shows how expert peple you are..........namaskar
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 21 December 2015
Hey dear querist don't get angry with the legal experts,they are right in their expression,but U have not given sufficient inputs for a better analysis of the case.
Guest
(Expert) 21 December 2015
Mr. Vaijanath,
You are wrong, if you expect the experts to open tutorial clsses for the students. Pay tuition to some local expert, if you are unable to properly interpret the provisions of law.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 21 December 2015
Rightly concluded by Adv Dhingraji
vaijanath
(Querist) 21 December 2015
Thank you sir for your EXPEEEERT opinion....
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 23 December 2015
UR desperation is visible in UR thanks giving.
