The provisions of Maintenance to women’s are intended to fulfill a social purpose. These provision are contained in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 under Sections 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 provision 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 provision 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.

Therefore, the parliament in its desire to find a solution to this problem evolved a procedure which has found expression in Chapter IX of Criminal Procedure Code.1973.This enactment is fully consistent with Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India which state that the prohibition contained in the constitution of India which states that the prohibition contained in the article shall not prevent the state from making any special provision for women and children. Article 39 of the Constitution also state, inter-alia that the state shall, in particular, direct its policies towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood, that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. The primary object of section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution, strarvation and vagrancy  Sumitra Devi Vs. Bhikam Choudhry (1985). The right to maintenance is circumscribed by certain factors. They are as follows-

{a} the relationship of husband is and wife should be proved, and their valid marriage to be proved Smt. Yamna Bai Vs. Anant Rao (1995)

{b} she must be unable to maintain herself,

{c} the husband must be having sufficient means and

{d} it should be proved that the husband has neglected or has refused to maintain wife.

Divorced woman can claim maintenance as she continues to enjoy the status of wife. Her husband who divorced her has a statutory duty to maintain her, if she cannot maintain herself and she remains unmarried. Rohtash Singh Vs. Smt. Ramendri and Other (2000). Ground of impotency of husband is good ground to live separately an claim maintenance Major Ashok Singh Vs. VI th  Addl. Sessions ( 1996)

Even a wife who has been divorced is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband provided that she has not re-married. Whether such a wife has been divorced by her husband or she has obtained divorced or the marriage was divorced by mutual consent, she would still be entitled to claim maintenance under the maintenance Act. However by the enactment of the Muslim Women Act, 1986 these provisions have been made inapplicable to the Muslim woman and her former husband can choose to be governed by the provision of this Chapter of the code. A child up to the age of eighteen years, legitimate or illegitimate, whether married or not, would be entitled to claim maintenance from his or her father. The father of a minor female child can be ordered to pay maintenance to such a child until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such a minor female child is not possessed of sufficient means. Even a child who has attained the age of majority has been enabled to claim maintenance if by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury is unable to maintain itself. Such a child may be legitimate or illegitimate.

A son may be married, but a daughter who’s has attained the age of majority but is married is not covered by this act .A father or a mother have been conferred the statutory right to claim maintenance from his or her son or daughter. The provisions of this act are not in the nature of penal provision but are only intended for the enforcement of a duty, default, which may lead to vagrancy. These provisions are really intended for ensuring some supply of food, clothing& shelter to the deserted wives, neglected children& parents.

In Nanak Chand Vs. Chandra Kishore, (1970) the Supreme Court held that, the Section 125 of Cr.P.C does not make any distinction between persons belonging to different religions or castes, and is applicable to all persons belonging to all religions and has no relationship with the personal law of the parties.

Judicial Pronouncements:

Maintenance To Wife: In Divyananda v. Jayarai two Roman Catholic entered into Suyamaryadhai form of marriage and lived together as husband and wife for period of 5 months in the course of which the wife conceived a child. The Court rejected the petition of the woman as she was not a legally wedded wife. The Court held that being Christian, their marriage in accordance to Hindu customs without any conversion was void ab-initio and hence the woman was not a wife in the eye of law. As such the woman could not claim maintenance U/S. 125 of, although her children illegitimate would be entitled to maintenance U/S. 125. In the case of K. Sivarama v. K. Bharathi that any marriage in contravention of Section 5 & 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, cannot be considered to be the valid marriage. Such a woman cannot recourse maintenance U/S. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for claiming maintenance. In the case of Ambaram v. Reshambai the court held that although the lot of women who entered into marriage without knowing about the subsistence of another marriage of her husband, although deserve a sympathetic treatment yet awarding of maintenance U/S. 25 & if any appeal is to be made, it should be made to the legislature. In the case of Abdul Salim v. Nagima Begam, the Court held that the phrase ‗unable to maintain herself ‘ should not be interpreted to mean that a wife in order to claim maintenance should be an absolute destitute or should be in tattered clothes, or should be the first one out of the street to beg. The very fact is that she has no other means of her own other than that of her husband to maintain her adequately to entitle her to the right of maintenance.

Maintenance For Living Together: In S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v Suruttayan Andalli Padayachi & Ors. The Supreme Court allowed presumption of marriage u/s 114 of Evidence Act out of live-in relations and presumed that their children were legitimate. Hence, they are rightfully entitled to receive a share in ancestral property. In the instance case, Matrimonial claim her brother Muthu Reddiars property who died unmarried and intestate. In Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State Of Maharashtra and Others, the positive opinion in favour of live in relationship was also seconded by Maharashtra Government in October, 2008 when it accepted the proposal made by Malimath Committee and Law Commission of India which suggested that if a woman has been in a live-in relationship for considerably long time, she ought to enjoy the legal status as given to wife.

Maintenance To Children: In Ram Chandra Giri v. Ram Suraj Giri where the father of a minor son neglected to provide maintenance, a petition was filed under section 125 of CrPC. Thereupon the father contended that the son has a good physic and was healthy and hence he had the ability to fend for himself. The Court rejected the contention and stated that the concept of potential earning capacity cannot be applied to, minor children as that would defeat the very purpose legislation.

To Step-Mother: According to the Orissa High Court held in Pitei Bewa v. Larimidhi Jena she would be included within the word “Mother”. The Allahabad High Court has supported this view. But in Rewal v. Kamalabai has held the contrary view and the High Court of Andhra has supported the interpretation that the “mother”, includes adoptive mother and he has the right to claim maintenance against the adoptive son.

Married Daughter‘S Liability:  In Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashiram Rajara Sawai, the Supreme Court in a landmark judgement held that the married daughter is liable to provide maintenance to their aged parents if they are unable to maintain themselves. In the case of Mr. Dutta & Mr. Ojha, JJ, held that married daughter does not cease to be daughter on her getting married. Farther more the Court held that if it is to be decided, that daughter has no liability to maintain their aged parents, those who have no son only daughter, would become destitute and beggar if their daughter provides for maintenance.

Alteration In Allowance (Sec.127 of The Cr.P.C): On the case of, Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissali, it was held by the SC that if the amount of deferred ‗Mehar‘ paid at the time of divorce is adequately to sustain the wife through her life time then an order of maintenance U/S. 125 shall be liable to be cancelled in accordance to S.127(3). The same view point was reiterated in Fuzlumbi v. K. Khader Ali. But in Shah Bano Begum v. Mohd. Ahmed Khan the SC held that ‗Mehar‘ is an amount paid in consideration of money and not of divorce and hence, it does not fulfill the condition of the S.127(3)(b). Therefore, irrespective of the amount of deferred‗Mehar‘ at the time of divorce an amount of maintenance cannot be cancelled U/S. 127(3)(b)

 BY Dr. Sailaja. Petikam