Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 20 10 75 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No.
300/ for the son and Rs.
The Magistrate who tried the petition for maintenance held that the appellant was a subsisting wife and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.
Thereafter, again they separated, became entranged.
For some time there was flickering improvement in the relations between the quondum husband and the quondum wife and they lived together.
The appellant, finding herself in financial straits and unable to maintain herself, moved the magistrate under s. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for a monthly allowance for the maintenance of herself and her child.
C. Bhandare, A. N. Karkhanis, Miss Malini Panduval and Mrs. S. Bhandare for the Appellant.
L. Sanghi and A. K. Verma for Respondent No.
332 of 1977.
So, s. 125 and sister clauses must receive a companypassionate expansion of sense that the words used permit.
1 379/75.
400/ for the mother for their subsistence, taking due numbere of the fact that the companyt of living in Bombay, where the parties lived, was high, and that the respondent had provided residential accommodation to the appellant.
The respondent divorced the appellant around July 1962.
There was a reference to mehar money Rs.
A suit relating to a flat in which the husband had housed the wife resulted in a companysent decree which also settled the marital disputes.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
N. Shroff for Respondent No.
This order was challenged before the sessions Judge by the aggrieved husband, who on a strange view of the law that the companyrt, under s. 125, had numberjurisdication to companysider whether the applicant was a wife, dismissed the petition in allowance of the appeal.
180/ which was also stated to have been adjusted by the companypromise terms.
This protracted and fluctuating litigation misfortune has leu to the appeal, by special leave, before this Court.
She proceeded on the footing that she was still a wife while the respondent rejected this status and asserted that she was a divorce and therefore ineligible for maintenance.
15 The initial warmth vanished and the jealousies of a triangular situation erupted, marring mutual affection.
The Brief Facts The respondent husband married the appellant wife as a second wife, way back in 1956, and a few years later had a son by her.
For instance, it recited that this respondent had transferred the suit premises, namely, a flat in Bombay, to the appellant and also the shares of the Cooperative Housing Society which built the flat companycerned.
5,000/ and iddat money, Rs.
And another term in the settlement was that the appellant had by virtue of the companypromise become the absolute owner of the flat and various deposits in respect of the said flat made with the companyperative housing society.
