Sec- 13
Puran Maurya
(Querist) 17 February 2012
This query is : Resolved
If wife is filed Sec- 13 (Divorce)
if husband accept the Divorce
then even maintenance is must for wife.
If any ruling or judgement pls. inform us.
RadhikaReddy
(Expert) 17 February 2012
Yes... coming to judgements there are numerous!
Even recently Supreme court have given judgement that a man should maintain his ex-wife also.
Tajobsindia
(Expert) 18 February 2012
Maint. during pending divorce is a matter of Court discretion subject to available facts before her. Now in instance brief before us if during pending divorce if husband does not contest the same it is still necessary for the wife to prove allegation (even one will do) by evidences and witnesses if any and mere acceptance of allegations by husband does not get a wife divorce otherwise what happens is tomorrow every couple will use this as speedy divorce way out all a couple have to do is file under one of the sub sections of S. 13 HMA divorce and other party will receive notice and make appearance accepting all allegations and there pops on very next date decree in divorce proceedings and all ld. brothers in illustration scenarios is to do is to pray for earliest hearing dates. Now draw parallel to MCD minimum wait of today’s date as per direction of Hon’ble SC and instead of 6 months wait as in MCD couple will do illustrated practice to get divorce.
There is another drawback in your query i.e. if husband accepts cruelties then he has to pay alimony too which cannot be avoided at all. So during pending months in proceedings if court directs maint. pendentlite then that he will pay as well as since he has accepted allegations so meeting alimony to wife also becomes must in such kind of briefs is views of various Courts.
Now, drawing attention to Hon'ble SC recent direction which first replier pointed to, it is a case under S. 125 CrPC maint. and not under HMA. Even be it so if ex wife remained un-married under change of circumstances post divorce there are few cases where enhancement in earlier maint. were granted by Hon'ble SC as well as by several HC's so in my opinion the opinion of first replier here is not fitting squarely onto your case is what I feel.
