JUDGMENT :

Krishna Iyer, J.

In this appeal, by special leave, we are called upon to interpret a benign provision enacted to ameliorate the economic condition of neglected wives and discarded divorcees, namely, Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. Welfare laws must be so read as to be effective delivery systems of the salutary objects sought to be served by the Legislature and when the beneficiaries are the weaker sections, like destitute women, the spirit of Article 15(3) of the Constitution must belight the meaning of the Section. The Constitution is a pervasive omni-presence brooding over the meaning and transforming the values of every measure. So Section 125 and sister clauses must receive a compassionate expansion of sense that the words used permit.

The Brief Facts :

2. The respondent (husband) married the appellant (wife) as a second wife, way back in 1956, and a few years later had a son by her. The initial warmth vanished and the jealousies of a triangular situation erupted, marring mutual affection. The respondent divorced the appellant around July 1962. A suit relating to a flat in which the husband had housed the wife resulted in a consent decree which also settled the marital disputes. For instance, it recited that the respondent had transferred the suit premises, namely, a flat in Bombay, to the appellant and also the shares of the Co-operative Housing Society which built the flat concerned. There was a reference to mehar money (Rs. 5,000/- and 'iddat' money, Rs. 180) which was also stated to have been adjusted by the compromise terms. There was a clause in the compromise :

"The plaintiff declares that she has now no claim or right whatsoever against the defendant or against the estate and the properties of the defendant."

And another term in the settlement was that the appellant had by virtue of the compromise become the absolute owner of the flat and various deposits in respect of the said flat made with the co-operative housing society.

3. For some time there was flickering improvement in the relations between the quondam husband and the quondum wife and they lived together. Thereafter, again they separated, became estranged. The appellant, finding herself in financial straits and unable to maintain herself, moved the Magistrate under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for a monthly allowance for the maintenance of herself and her child. She proceeded on the footing that she was still, a wife while the respondent rejected this status and ascerted that she was a divorcee and therefore ineligible for maintenance. The Magistrate, who tried the petition for maintenance, held that the appellant was a subsisting wife and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- for the son and Rs. 400/- for the mother for their subsistence, taking due note of the fact that the cost of living in Bombay, where the parties lived, was high, and that the respondent had provided residential accommodation to the appellant.

4. This order was challenged before the Sessions Judge by the aggrieved husband, who on a strange view of the law that the Court, under Section 125, had no jurisdiction to consider whether the applicant was a wife, dismissed the petition in allowance of the appeal. The High Court, designed to bestow little attention on the matter and summarily dismissed a revision petition. This protracted and fluctuating litigation misfortune has led to the appeal, by special leave, before this Court.

The Questions Mooted :

5. Shri Bhandarre, appearing for the appellant, contended that the Courts below had surprisingly forgotten the plain provision in the Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) of the Code which reads :

"wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

On this foundation, he urged that accepting the contention of the respondent that the appellant was a divorcee, his client was still entitled to an allowance. This is obviously beyond dispute on a simple rea