Maintenance u/s 18 h a & m act
Vijay Kumar
(Querist) 08 April 2014
This query is : Resolved
I understand that u/s 18 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, husband is ABSOLUTELY liable to maintain his wife. He is not allowed to take defence that his wife owns property.(If we go by language of statute)
Am I right? Kindly enlighten.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 09 April 2014
The right to claim interim maintenance in a suit is a substantive right under section 18 of the Act. Since no form is prescribed to enforce the said right civil court in exercise of its inherent power can grant interim maintenance;
Under sub section (1) of section 18 of the act, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time. therefore your question that whether she will be able to claim maintenance or not if she owns a property does not finds a place in the said provisions of law.
R.V.RAO
(Expert) 10 April 2014
if posessing property can lead to possessing regular income, the following is an interesting judgement.
Financially stable wife can’t claim maintenance: Bombay high court
Shibu Thomas, TNN | Feb 24, 2014, 01.46AM IST
MUMBAI: Only a wife with no sufficient source of permanent income can claim maintenance from her husband, the Bombay high court has ruled. A division bench of Justice Vijaya Kapse-Tahilramani and Justice P N Deshmukh rejected an application by an Andheri resident, Sheela Sharma (61), who had sought Rs 15,000 as monthly maintenance from her husband, Nitin Sharma, who is based in Australia.
"It is a well-settled law that only a wife who has no sufficient permanent source of income can claim and get maintenance from her husband who has sufficient means," said the judges. The Sharmas have a son and daughter who are married and settled abroad. The couple has been living separately since 2007.
source:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Financially-stable-wife-cant-claim-maintenance-Bombay-high-court/articleshow/30918626.cms
Guest
(Expert) 11 April 2014
Dear Vijay,
Academic queries are not replied, as in most cases for their own ease, students try to take undue advantage of the experts to solve their academic problems without making their own efforts to learn at their own.
In your case, neither you have discussed any real problem for which you wanted confirmation on your views, nor you tried to introduce yourself as an advocate before posting your query. So, obviously your query is of an academic nature, as taken by some community members.
You had also been a lecturer-in-law at Kurukshetra University. So, it is not understood, on what was the exact reason in gettong confirmed your own views, while section 18 is very clear in itself.
As such, it would have been much better had you discussed the real problem to enable us to know for what purpose you wanted confirmation of your views from other experts.
So, can you please make it clear, what sort of doubt is there in your own interprtation and with reference to what context?
Vijay Kumar
(Querist) 11 April 2014
My Respected Mr. Goyal and Mr.Dhingra
I am surprised to read the comments that academic discussion is not allowed in Expert Section. I was under impression that intricacies of law can be discussed with experts in this section.
Kindly guide me what kind of matters are pursued in this section.
My query is not academic.I have filed a civil suit under above referred provision and the plaintiff/wife has also paid ad volerm court fee on the amount of claimed maintenance. Her husband is contesting on ground that wife owns agricultural land.
That is why I sought your guidance.I regret the inconvenience caused to all esteemed experts.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 11 April 2014
Ok, but clarify whether you are a law school lecturer or not as informed by Dhingraji.
Guest
(Expert) 12 April 2014
Dear Vijay Kumar,
I really wonder, if an ex-lecturer in law says, "my query is not academic," when he has not discussed any specific legal problem through his query. Your question is purely theoretical and of academic interest, which is normally discussed in the forum section of the LCI just for general knowledge sake by the laymen.
I hope as an ex-lecturer-in-law, you could well have realised that academic queries lead to several unending supplementary queries resulting in wastage of time of experts.
You can also realise that particular situations, specific problems in different circumstances have no matching legal implications.
No doubt intricacies of law can be discussed with experts in this section, but appropriate introduction of the querist, background of the problem and real intricacy, as felt by an advocate brethren is also a must to discuss the intricacies of law. Otherwise, a theoretical and academic question can attract only general knowledge type academic replies from the experts from which you cannot expect befitting results pertaining to your specific problem.
There would not have been any controversy about your query had you included in your intial query, what you have stated now about the case of your client, claim of wife u/s 18, etc., objection of husband about his wife having agricultural land. But still, you have not mentioned on whose behalf you are fighting the case. That was also relevant to seek specific advice.
Since I happened to see your profile before my reply, I pointed out to you that you should have introduced yourself and the reason to discuss such a question on the face of the clear provision of sec. 18. Had I not seen your profile, my reply would also have been the same and very limited, stating, "academic query."
But, your cross-questioning experts was astonishing for one and all.
Hope you can understand, why there is a need and importance of discussing the real problem and the intricacy arising out of the problem.
With reference to facts stated now, I can say that no rider has been prescribed in Sec.18 or separately in the act, if wife has agricultural land or any other wealth to any extent. Please note, only recurring income, not the wealth of the claimant is relevant to maintenance. If husband can prove that the wife has sufficient income to survive as compared to him, only then the husband can think about positive result in his case.
