A divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if the marriage is dissolved.

JUDGMENT- S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.:---The brief facts are that the appellant in Second Appeal No. 88/1984 viz. Gayabai w/o Panditrao Kalure (original plaintiff) had claimed that she was a legally wedded wife of Panditrao Chimaji Kalure (original defendant). Gayabai had filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 193/1969 for grant of maintenance from Panditrao Chimaji Kalure and also claimed maintenance for the previous three years. In the said regular civil suit, Gayabai had contended that they have been married for 11 years and that she has been living with her husband for a period of five years and eight months. In the year 1963, Panditrao Kalure had obtained a job as a teacher and he had declined to take her with him at the place of service at village Bhogalwadi. Gayabai had alleged that Panditrao Kalure, had ill-treated her. It appears that said Gayabai had also filed an application for maintenance under section 488 of Cri.P.C. In the said proceedings Panditrao Kalure had produced a divorce deed, mentioning that the said marriage was mutually dissolved between the parties by consent on 5-5-1967. The Criminal Court had accepted the said divorce deed and had rejected the application of Gayabai for maintenance. In the aforesaid suit, Gayabai had contended that she had never given such a divorce and there was no customary practice in her community to enter into any such divorce deed and also contended that the said divorce deed was a false and fabricated document, as such, same ought to be declared as null and void.

2. The main contention of Gayabai was that her husband was not maintaining her and that she was being maintained by her parents. She had also alleged that Panditrao Kalure receives a monthly salary of Rs. 200/- and that he is a member of a joint family which owns 45 acres of land and out of which, 10 acres are irrigated land. Under these circumstances, Gayabai had claimed Rs. 100/- p.m. as maintenance and Rs. 3,600/- as past maintenance. She had also prayed for a declaration that the divorce deed dated 5-5-1967 to be declared null and void, being a false and fabricated document. She had also sought a declaration that she is a legally wedded wife of Panditrao Kalure.

3. The defendant Panditrao Kalure had filed his written statement contending that as per the prevailing custom, he had divorced his wife Gayabai by executing divorce deed on 5-5-1967. He had also contended that the marriage had taken place almost 15 years back when both of them were minors. He had strongly disputed that Gayabai was residing with him for five years and eight months. On the contrary, he had contended that Gayabai hardly resided with him for a period of two years or so after their marriage. Panditrao Kalure had strongly disputed that he had ever ill-treated Gayabai and he had strongly denied that he had ever deserted her and driven her out of the house.

4. Panditrao Kalure had contended that Gayabai very rarely came to his house at Ramwadi while the marriage was subsisting and in fact, her brother and other persons used to bring her and she would not come on her own and she was very unwilling to come to the residence of Panditrao Kalure. Even the parents of Gayabai were not willing to send her, when Panditrao Kalure was living at Ramwadi. In view of this behaviour of Gayabai, finally, Gayabai and her parents had decided to take a divorce from Panditrao Kalure. The defendant Panditrao Kalure had contended that accordingly a special messenger by name Ramrao s/o Danreddy, r/o Yellamwadi was sent seeking a divorce from the defendant. Panditrao had contended that the divorce deed in favour of Panditrao Kalure was scribed by the brother of Gayabai viz. Ramrao Narsingrao Tandre and the said divorce deed was also attested by some witnesses. Panditrao Kalure contends that the divorce deed was executed as per the existing and prevailing custom in their community.

5. The trial Court, after hearing the parties had held that the plaintiff Gayabai had proved ill-treatme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document