<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1978 (10) TMI 157 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302850</link>
    <description>A divorced woman who has not remarried remains within the statutory definition of &quot;wife&quot; under Section 125 CrPC, and the welfare provision must be construed liberally to protect against destitution. On the recorded facts, the obligation to maintain was not displaced by divorce, so maintenance remained payable. A prior consent decree and mehar payment under personal or customary law can defeat a claim under Section 127(3)(b) only if the amount is a real, reasonable and adequate substitute for maintenance; a nominal or illusory payment does not extinguish the statutory right. The maintenance claim therefore survived.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2022 17:39:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=682699" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (10) TMI 157 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302850</link>
      <description>A divorced woman who has not remarried remains within the statutory definition of &quot;wife&quot; under Section 125 CrPC, and the welfare provision must be construed liberally to protect against destitution. On the recorded facts, the obligation to maintain was not displaced by divorce, so maintenance remained payable. A prior consent decree and mehar payment under personal or customary law can defeat a claim under Section 127(3)(b) only if the amount is a real, reasonable and adequate substitute for maintenance; a nominal or illusory payment does not extinguish the statutory right. The maintenance claim therefore survived.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>