Logic behind filing multiple maintenance suits ?

1. I request ld. friends here to guide a common man like me facing multiple maintenance to understand what is its logic based on below anti-thesis I interpret / discovered may be I may be wrong but afterall I am still learning and no harm understanding maintenance Laws from ld. friends here.

So here is my observations onlogics behind multiple maint cases unfortunately filed by ...............:-

HMA - Hindu Marriage Act
HAMA - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance act

HMA was passed in 1955.

HAMA was passed in 1956.

Before HMA and HAMA, the way to get maintenance was to file for maintenance in civil court and fight the case based on unmodified personal laws and customary laws and through established case laws / judgments of courts etc.

The way to get interim maintenance was to file under Section 488 CrPC. Section 488 CrPC was a summary trial. It had a limit - probably Rs 100 to start with in the initial days.

So there was a civil part of maintenance litigation and a criminal part under Section 488 CrPC. the criminal part was only for interim maintenance.

For the above reason, one can see multiple judgments which say - decision of "civil court will prevail over criminal court for maintenance".

The reason for this is that criminal Section 488 was only interim. Civil maintenance was final. Hence such statements in multiple orders (I can collect some of these to refer in the Hon'ble Court if anyone here is interested in its core studies).

Then in 1955, HMA came into being. It had a special Section 24 for interim maintenance and a special section for permanent maintenance - S. 25 HMA. It is clear from judgment Jawaharlal Dhawan that it is clear and unambiguous that once any petition is filed from Section 9 to Section 14 of HMA, interim maintenance will have to be under Section 24.

This above is logic for not allowing to file any other maintenance after any petition under Section 9 to 14 HMA is filed. Law and several case law are clear on that.

Once marriage is disrupted under Section 9 to 14 HMA, permanent maintenance can only be given under Section 25 HMA - law is clear and several judgments also says so.

Now on to HAMA. HAMA if one looks carefully does not have any explicit section for interim maintenance. The HMA which was passed just a year before that had special section for interim maintenance.

Its not that the law makers forgot to add interim maintenance under HAMA. The whole funda before that was interim maintenance under Section 488 CrPC. It was supposed to continue with HAMA also. So while marriage subsisted, S 488 CrPC for interim, Section 18 HAMA for civil maintenance. This is what was the legislative intention, that is why they did not put any section for interim in HAMA.

In 1975 / 76, they put new CrPC and put Section 125 CrPC which was nothing but copy of S 488 of old CrPC so then also, interim by S. 125 CrPC, Maintenance under S. 18 HAMA, as long as no petition under Section 9 to 14 of HMA.

Somewhere I feel which is my interpretation down the line, Hon'ble Justice slipped the anti-thesis by overriding the legislative intent in making the Law. The present convention of Hon'ble Judges are not very clear.

Down the line, in the 90s, interim maintenance was allowed under HAMA. As soon as higher courts allowed interim maintenance under S. 18 HAMA, that was the time they should have disallowed Hindus to file under Section 125 CrPC since there was no reason left to use a generic law when a specific statute was present.

Later on in 2000 / 2003 timeframe, limit on Section 125 CrPC was removed and interim in Section 125 CrPC was allowed. Most of this was to facilitate other religions which did not have strong codified laws like HMA and HAMA.

After the changes in HAMA which allowed interim and after changes in Section 125 CrPC which removed limit of Rs. 300 / 500 and also allowed interim, a Hindu wife should not be allowed to file under Section 125 CrPC.

Hindu wife should now file under Section 24 HMA while any activity under HMA.

Hindu wife should now file only under Section 18 HAMA while no activity under HMA.

Hindu wife must file for permanent alimony only after decree is granted under Section 9 to 14 of HMA.

Jawaharlal Dhawan judgment explains some of it well.

A good judgment can also draw natural corollaries.

Section 125 CrPC filed, then divorce filed, interim in Section 125 CrPC granted, Section 24 HMA filed - in response, Section 24 HMA Hon'ble Justice should just continue Section 125 CrPC amount, unless there is change in circumstance and the Section 125 CrPC case should stop since divorce has been filed, or at least adjourned till the date divorce is dismissed.

Ideal case scenario, as soon as Section 125 CrPC is filed, if Hindu, Hon'ble Justice should say - go file under Section 18 HAMA.

These are some of the many corollaries which I can think of which I feel should form part of a speaking order of Hon'ble Justice

I humbly request experienced seniors and alike here to clarify on these thinking and request family courts to "write on stone" so to say to petitioner (wife) are clear about the position of the law which has changed over time but not interpreted correctly thus leading to multiple lawsuits wasting the precious time of already overloaded Hon'ble Courts and deliver natural justice to the defendant (husabnd) in just case.

 
Reference case law: Chand Dhawan Vs. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993) 3 SCC 406, 1993 SCR (3) 954 OR https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1162687/

Regards,
D. Arun Kumar, New Delhi, ishqindia@gmail.com, 981162 4141