PADMJA SHARMA V.

RATAN LAL SHARMA

Maintenance has not been defined in the Act or between the parents whose duty it is
to maintain the children. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 and Hindu Succession Act, 1956 constitute a law in a coded form for
the Hindus. Unless there is anything repugnant to the context definition of a particular
word could be lifted from any of the four Acts constituting the law to interpret a
certain provision. All these Act are to be read in conjunction with one another
and interpreted accordingly. We can, therefore, go
to Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short the 'Maintenance Act') to
understand the meaning of the 'maintenance'. In clause (b) of Section 3 of
this Act "maintenance includes (i) in all cases, provisions for food, clothing,
residence, education and medical attendance and treatment; (ii) in the case of an
unmarried daughter also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage" and
under clause (c) "minor means a person who has not completed his or her age of
eighteen years".

C. Obula Konda Reddy vs C. Pedda Venkata Lakshmamma on 14

July, 1975

The Act does not define a Hindu wife. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 says that
a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be
entitled to be maintained by her husband. This Act came into operation on 21st
December, 1956. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 says that a Hindu wife shall be
entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim
to maintenance if he has any other wife living. Reading these two sub-sections
together, it is clear that a Hindu wife whether married before or after the
commencement of this Act, is entitled to live separately from her husband without
forfeiting her claim to maintenance if he has any other wife living. Both the lower
courts have fund that the plaintiff was in fact married to the 1st defendant in October,
1955 i.e., before this Act has come into force. It is not also disputed that the 1st
defendant has another wife living. Therefore, both the requirements of Section 18 are
satisfied and consequently the plaintiff for maintenance. I am not prepared
to interpret the words 'Hindu wife' in Section 18 as a wife whose marriage is valid
according to the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act for the provisions
of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act do not warrant such an interpretation.
Such an interpretation will render the provisions of Section 18 otiose for, after
the Hindu Marriage Act has come into force, there could be no legally wedded wife if
another wife is living. So reading Section 18 without any limitations I hold that
a Hindu wife contemplated by that section, means a Hindu wife whose marriage is
solemnized.

Abbayolla M. Subba Reddy vs Padmamma (PURPOSIVE

INTERPRETATION AND PARI MATERIA STATUTE ) (ANDRA
HIGH COURT) (QUESTION OF AMBIGUITY)
Thus, the Supreme Court and various High Courts including Andhra Pradesh High
Court had taken the view that a woman whose marriage is valid under the provisions
of the Hindu Marriage Act alone is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband
and the woman whose marriage is void ab initio cannot make any claim
for maintenance; as such a marriage cannot create a legal status of husband and wife
between the parties. We are also of the firm view that the words "Hindu Wife"
appearing in Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act has to
be interpreted as a wife whose marriage is valid according to the provisions of
the Hindu Marriage Act. We do not agree with the observations of the learned single
Judge in "" (supra) that the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act do
not warrant interpretation of such a Hindu wife and such an interpretation renders
the provisions of Section 18 of Maintenance Actotiose.- In our view such
an interpretation stands to reason when we take into consideration all these
four Acts which were passed as a package of enactments being part of one Socio-legal
scheme applicable to Hindus and codifying the various laws prevailing in various
parts of the country before that codification. By codifying the personal laws prevailing
and applicable to Hindus, the Parliament intended to have monogamy among
the Hindus and therefore, Hindu Marriage Act was passed to prevent bigamous
marriages and for that purpose, it is enacted that a bigamous marriage is void and also
constituted such a marriage as a crime for which punishment has been provided.
Therefore, it does not appear to be the intention of the Parliament that while such a
bigamous marriage is rendered void, the bigamous relationship should be recognised
for purpose of maintenance.

Commissioner Of Gift-Tax vs Smt. B. Indira Devi

Before dealing with the question, it is nothing but appropriate to understand the
correct position under the law, relating
to maintenance. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter to
be referred to as "the Act"), which received the assent of the President on December
21, 1956, came into operation on that day. The Act has a codifying enactment. After
the Act came into force, there is no scope for any customary usage, unless that is
saved expressly. Section 4 of the Act clearly states that save as otherwise expressly
provided, any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the
commencement of this Act, shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for
which provision is made in this Act. Section 4 further provides that any other law in
force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall cease to apply
to Hindus, in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions, contained in
this Act. Thus, Section 4 of the Act gives overriding application to the provisions of
the Act and in effect, lays down that in respect of any of the matters dealt with in
the Act, it seeks to repeal all existing laws, whether in the shape of enactments or
otherwise, which are inconsistent with this Act. The effect of this codified law is that
immediately on the coming into operation of the Act, the law
of adoption and maintenance hitherto applicable to Hindus whether by virtue of any
text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage having the force of
law, ceases to have effect with respect to all matters dealt with in
the Act. The Act does not merely crystallise or declare the existing law upon the
subject of adoption and maintenance, but deliberately departs from the same in
respect of certain matters. It supersedes prior law and lays down the whole law
of adoption and maintenance in the form of a code and so far as it goes must be read
as a complete enactment.

Kishan vs Sakharabai
Sri N.A. Mandgi, learned Counsel, argued that H-A. & M.Act codifies the Hindu law
on Adoption and Maintenance and makes the provisions in that Act over-ride any
text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in
force immediately before the commencement of the Act, and any other law in force
immediately before the commencement of the Act, by stating so in Section 4 of H.A.
& M.Act. Therefore, Section 18 of the H.A. & M. Act. would necessarily mean that
only a wife who continues to have that legal status has the right to claim and
receive maintenance provided she satisfies the conditions laid down therein. He made
it clear by stating that Section 18 of the H.A. & M.Act does not permit a divorced
wife or a wife whose marriage has been annulled by a decree of nullity or declared
void by a decree of nullity to claim and receive maintenance.

Rajan Mittal And Another vs Nari Niketan Trust (Regd.) Nakodar Road
on 30 March, 2012
(harmonious interpretation)
The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Juvenile Justice Act,
2000 must be harmoniously construed. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 deals with conditions requisite for adoption by Hindus. The Juvenile Justice
Act of 2000 is a special enactment dealing with children in conflict with law and
children in need of care and protection. While enacting the Juvenile Justice Act 2000
the legislature has taken care to ensure that its provisions are secular in character and
that the benefit of adoption is not restricted to any religious or social group. The focus
of the legislation is on the condition of the child taken in adoption. If the child is
orphaned, abandoned or surrendered, that condition is what triggers the beneficial
provisions for adoption. The legislation seeks to ensure social integration of such
children and adoption is one method to achieve that object. The religious identity of
the child or of the parents who adopt is not a precondition to the applicability of the
law. The law is secular and deals with conditions of social destitution which cut across
religious identities. The legislature in its wisdom clarified in sub section (6) of Section
41 that the Court may allow a child to be given in adoption to parents to adopt a child
of the same sex irrespective of the number of living biological sons or daughters. This
provision is intended to facilitate the rehabilitation of orphaned, abandoned or
surrendered children. The condition must apply to all persons irrespective of religious
affiliation who seek to adopt children of that description. The object of rehabilitation
and providing for social reintegration to orphaned, abandoned or surrendered children
is a matter of high legislative policy. It is in effectuation of that policy that the
legislature has stipulated that adoption of such a child must proceed irrespective of the
marital status of a person taking in adoption and irrespective of the number of living
biological children of the parents seeking adoption. Consequently, where the child
which is sought to be adopted falls within the description of an orphaned, abandoned
or surrendered child within the meaning of sub section (2) of Section 41 or a child in
need of care and protection under clause (d) of Section 2, the provisions of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 must prevail. In such
a case the embargo that is imposed on adopting a child of the same sex by a Hindu
under clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 must give way to the salutary provisions made by the Juvenile Justice Act.
Where, however, the child is not of a description falling under the purview of Chapter
IV of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, a Hindu desirous of adopting a child continues to
be under the embargo imposed by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 11 of the Act of 1956.
If the two pieces of legislation, both of which are enacted by Parliament are
harmoniously construed, there is no conflict of interpretation."

Charanjit Kaur And Anr. vs Darshan Singh on 28 January, 2005

In view of the binding precedent laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as
well as the principles laid down by this Court in earlier judgments the Court has
implied power to grant ad-interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition
under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The observations of
Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. in
Smt. Savitri's case (supra) are applicable to the facts of the present case with equal
force. It has been held that in the absence of any express prohibition, in Chapter IX of
the Code, it is appropriate to construe the provision as conferring implied power on
the Magistrate to direct the person against whom an application is made under Section
125 of the Code to pay some reasonable sum by way of maintenance. The Supreme
Court even recognised the jurisdiction to grant an ad-interim maintenance.

Tarlok Singh vs Manbir Kaur

(liberal interpretation of this act should be done so as to not
defeat the purpose of the act)
In order, therefore, to understand and appreciate the true meaning and scope of
Section 19 of the of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the Act must, in my
opinion, be construed and interpreted in the background and light of the legislative
scheme or pattern which is discernible and which emerges from a reading together
of the recent progressive legislative measures on similar or cognate subjects, e.g.
Statute like The Hindu Succession Act . The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
1956 and the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act 1937, as amended later, and
other enactments which have conferred on Hindu Women rights with respect to
property which they were considered not to possess under the original texts
of Hindu Law. All these recent enactments which have, as their fundamental purpose,
the removal of Hindu Women's disabilities and conferment on them of better rights
for maintenance and property may, in my opinion, be legitimately and with
advantage referred to and harmoniously construed for the purpose of ascertaining the
real manifest intention and the underlying cardinal purpose of the Parliament in
enacting Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance act, in response to the needs and
demands of a progressive society. These legislative measures appear to me clearly to
reflect the modern liberal tendency of the Hindu society to confer on Hindu women
much larger rights than they had heretofore been enjoying. The medieval conservative
theory of treating women as inferior beings has, in my opinion, been finally discarded
by the Parliament in the clearest possible terms. In view of these objectives, I would
be inclined to place a liberal interpretation favouring Hindu women on the
provisions of the of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.