Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)Section 125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Baldev Raj vs Pushpa Rani on 16 December, 1969
5. The only point urged on behalf of the appellant is that no maintenance could be allowed under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act because in the decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties, granted on 29th of August 2979, on the ground of desertion, it was held that it was the wife who deserted the husband for a continuous period of more than 2 years. Under these circumstances, it was contended that the respondent-wife cannot be allowed to take benefit of her own fault. Moreover, according, to the learned counsel, the Court, while granting permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, will take into consideration the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case which may seem to the Court to be just. According to the learned counsel, this fact has not been considered by the learned Additional District Judge and, in view of the conduct of the wife, she is not entitled to any maintenance. In support of his contention, he also referred to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein it has been provided that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or, if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. He cited Balldev Raj v. Pushpa Rani, 1970-72 Pun LR 291: (AIR 1970 Punj 515) in support of this contention.
1