TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpretation of Maintenance Rights for Neglected Wives & Divorcees Under Criminal Procedure Code</h1> <h3>BAI TAHIRA Versus ALI HUSSAIN FISSALLI CHOTHI</h3> BAI TAHIRA Versus ALI HUSSAIN FISSALLI CHOTHI - 1979 AIR 362, 1979 (2) SCR 75, 1979 (2) SCC 316 Issues:Interpretation of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) for maintenance of neglected wives and divorcees.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, which aims to provide maintenance to neglected wives and divorcees. The court emphasized that welfare laws, like Section 125, should be interpreted liberally to serve the legislative intent of aiding destitute women. The court highlighted the constitutional mandate under Article 15(3) to protect the rights of marginalized sections of society, such as neglected wives and divorcees. The judgment stressed the need for a compassionate approach in interpreting and applying laws that benefit vulnerable individuals.The case involved a wife who sought maintenance under Section 125 after being divorced by her husband. The husband argued that the wife, being a divorcee, was not entitled to maintenance. However, the court held that the Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) explicitly includes divorced women within the definition of 'wife' for the purpose of maintenance. The court ruled that every divorcee meeting the eligibility criteria is entitled to maintenance, irrespective of the dissolution of the marriage.The respondent raised three main arguments to oppose the maintenance claim. Firstly, he contended that the wife was living separately by mutual consent, invoking Section 125(4). Secondly, he argued that there was no neglect to maintain the wife, a prerequisite for Section 125. Lastly, he relied on a settlement through a consent decree in 1962, which he claimed extinguished the wife's right to maintenance. However, the court rejected these arguments, emphasizing the statutory right of divorcees under Section 125 and the public policy considerations behind it.Regarding the settlement through the consent decree, the court held that the statutory right to maintenance under Section 125 supersedes any prior contractual arrangements. The court emphasized that the purpose of Section 125 is to prevent destitution among ill-used wives and desperate divorcees. The court clarified that customary or personal law payments, such as mehar, must be substantial enough to fulfill the maintenance obligation towards the divorcee. The court underscored the societal and legal duty to ensure divorced women are not left in a state of material or moral abandonment.In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal and reinstated the trial court's order granting maintenance to the wife and child. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding the statutory rights of neglected wives and divorcees, ensuring their economic well-being and social protection.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
