The wife is entitled to receive maintenance from her daughter if the daughter is employed. Therefore, to secure additional financial support for her livelihood, the wife is entitled to file a case against her daughter.
 

Multiple Orders

The order passed by the learned Magistrate regarding maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code shall remain in abeyance as long as the wife receives alimony pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code will become operative as soon as the order under Section 24 ceases to exist.
 

Necessity of Proof of Marriage

A proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is of a summary nature, and the intricacies of the law are not required to be examined in detail. If the man and woman are treated by the community as husband and wife, and the man has treated the woman as his wife, marriage between them must be inferred for the limited purpose of Section 125 of the Code. It is not necessary to provide conclusive evidence of marriage under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code to award maintenance to a destitute wife from her husband. Section 125, Cr.P.C., is "a measure of social justice, specially enacted to protect women and children." Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, empowers the Court exercising jurisdiction under the Act to make provisions for permanent alimony and maintenance at the time of passing the decree or at any time thereafter. This section, therefore, grants Civil Courts the authority to provide permanent alimony when passing a decree for divorce. However, in this case, the petition for divorce filed by the husband was dismissed, and the marriage continues to subsist. It was held that until the High Court reverses the decision of the Subordinate Judge, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent continues to subsist. Therefore, it was concluded that the criminal court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  Relevant Case Law

• P.V. Susheela vs. Komalavally, I (2000) DMC 376 Kerala.
• Haridas Bhattacharjee vs. Suparana Bhattacharjee, II (2000) DMC 611 Calcutta.
• Anupama Pradhan vs. Sultan Pradhan, II (1991) DMC 618 Orissa, relying upon Saudamini Devi vs. Bhagirathi Raj, 53 (1982) CLT 93: I (1982) DMC 333.
• Balan Nair vs. Valsalamma, 1986 Ker LT 1378, as relied on in K. Selvaraj @ Surendran vs. P. Joul, DMC 13 Ker (DB).

Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email: [email protected], Ph No: +9051244073