A divorced wife cannot claim maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; her claim should be made under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

J U D G M E N T

A.M.Shaffique, J.

This appeal is filed by the petitioners in O.P.No.774/13, challenging judgment dated 7.1.2016, by which, an application for maintenance for the petitioners was partly allowed. The original petition was filed inter alia seeking past and future maintenance for the divorced wife and minor child under sections

18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act , 1956.

2. There is no dispute about the fact that the couple were married and later on divorced. Claim was for maintenance @ `5,000/- per month for the first petitioner/wife and @ `7,000/- for the minor daughter. The 1st petitioner has also claimed `3,60,000/- as arrears of maintenance.

3. The respondent entered appearance and filed objections stating his readiness to provide maintenance to the minor @ `2,000/- per month. However, he disputed the liability to pay :-2-:

maintenance to the wife. Later, he remained ex parte. Based on the proof affidavit filed by the petitioner, the Family Court allowed maintenance @ `5,000/- for the minor. However, maintenance was denied in respect of wife/1st petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants impugn the aforesaid judgment on two grounds. One is that a divorced wife was entitled for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act , 1956, and secondly, the quantum of maintenance granted in favour of the minor was less than what has been claimed.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Family Court was justified in rejecting the claim of the wife, since Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act , 1956, applies only to a wife and a divorced wife is not entitled for maintenance. In regard to the minor child the amount of `5,000/- already awarded, is reasonable and there is no reason to interfere in that.

6. The short question to be considered in the above appeal is with regard to the validity of the aforesaid judgment.

7. One main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the word 'Hindu wife' is used :-3-:

under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act , 1956, it includes the divorced wife as well. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance upon the judgment inChand Dhawan (Smt) v. Jawaharlal Dhawan [ (1993) 3 SCC 406 ], in which, the Apex Court, after having considered the claim of a Hindu wife and a divorced wife, had compared the various provisions under of the , 1956, Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and had observed that as far as of the , 1956, is concerned, the same would apply at a stage when the status of the wife remains as such. However, a divorced wife is entitled for maintenance if the claim is made under of the . Even under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the explanation given to the said provision clarifies that a wife includes a divorced wife. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual issues and law laid down by the Apex Court, it is rather clear that of the , 1956, cannot be invoked by a divorced wife, whereas, the proper method is to apply of the , in which, appropriate provisions are already been made to enable :-4-:

a divorced wife to claim maintenance. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955, reads as follows:

“Permanent alimony and maintenance.--(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall [xxxxx] pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant [the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case], it may seem to the court to be