Skip to main content

Maintenance

 MAINTENANCE

The provisions of maintenance act are entitled to fulfil a social purpose. These provisions are contained in Criminal procedure code, 1973 under section 125 to 128 under the Hindu marriage act, 1955 under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance act, 1956. Under the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The maintenance and welfare of Parents and Senior citizens act, 2007.

The object of all these provisions is to compel a man to perform the moral obligations, which he owes to the society in respect of his wife, children and parents. By provisions a simple and speedy but limited relief. These provisions seek to ensure that the neglected wife and children are not left beggared and destitute on the scrapheap of society and there by driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence.  

The inability of the wife, child and father or mother to maintain themselves could lead to social problems and therefore, it became the concern of the state not to allow such inability to grow in to social problems of great magnitude unless the consequences of such inability were checked by providing appropriate measure, large scale vagrancy could be the probable off-shoot there from. 

The legal definition of maintenance is the financial support that is paid by one ex-spouse to another pursuant to a legal separation or divorce. This financial support is for the wife’s or the divorced wife’s livelihood, for her children, for the maintenance of the property, and in certain cases, even to enable her to be adequately represented in the lawsuit. 

MAINTENANCE UNDER VARIOUS LAWS:

  • Maintenance under Hindu Law

  • Maintenance under Muslim Law

  • Maintenance under Christian Law

  • Maintenance under Paris Law

  • Maintenance under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

  • Maintenance under protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

  • The maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens Act, 2007

Maintenance under the CrPC is secular in nature, as any woman belonging to and practicing any religion or faith can approach the court under this. The law of maintenance is given under the section 125-128 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and is civil in nature. Under this section, maintenance can be claimed by the wife, children and parents. Section 125 to 128 provide for a speedy, effective and rather inexpensive remedy against persons who neglect or refuse to maintain their dependent wives, children and parents. 

Under the Hindu Laws, the male counterparts are also eligible to receive maintenance. But in cases of second marriage, the second wives can only get respite under the secular law of maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC. So, the CrPC is a better recourse to get maintenance compared to the Hindu Personal Law

In case of Muslim women, it is definitely more beneficial for them to approach the court under the CrPC for claiming maintenance, rather than under their personal law. Also, it also applies on divorced women, unlike the Muslim Personal Law. It also provides for a lifetime maintenance, unlike the Muslim Law that only provides for maintenance till the Iddat period. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree