Judgment:
ORDER
R.A. Mehta, J.
1. The petitioner and the opponent were husband and wife married in the year 1962. In 1971, it appears that they were living in Poona and the wife left him. The husband had filed H.M.P. No. 124 of 1971 in the Civil Court at Poona and an ex parte decree for divorce came to be passed on 12-9-1977. In appeal, the Bombay High Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter. After the remand, again decree for divorce came to be passed on 9-9-1985. The wife preferred M.C.A. No. 57 of 1985 for setting aside that decree. However, the trial court rejected the same, therefore, the wife preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 383 of 1989 in the District Court at Poona and applied for interim relief and the appellate court granted stay of the execution of the decree passed by the trial court.
2. In the meantime, the wife had filed the Criminal Misc. Application No. 47 of 1989 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code in the Criminal Court at Kalol and by an order dated 29-5-1990, she has been granted maintenance from the husband at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month from 14-2-1989. It is stated that this amount is now Rs. 500/- per month and this amount is being paid to her. The wife also filed Civil Misc. Application No. 101 of 1987 in the Civil Court at Mehsana for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and she also filed an application Ex. 6 for interim maintenance. The trial court granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800/ - per month inclusive of the maintenance awarded by the Criminal Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, there is addi-tional maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. It is this amount which is the subject matter of the present proceeding.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner husband submits that Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintainance Act, 1956 applies only in a case where a marriage is subsisting and the wife continues to have the status of a wife and after the divorce, she is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 18 of the Act. Secondly, it is submitted that the husband having obtained a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion by the wife, the wife is not entitled to any maintenance from the husband.
4. Section 18 of the Hindu Ad options and Maintenance Act, 1956 reads as follows:--
'18. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime.
(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her hus.band without forfeiting her claim to maintenance.
(a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or of wilfully neglecting her;
(b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband;
(c) if he is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy;
(d) if he has any other wife living;
(e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is Hying or habituallyresides with a concubine elsewhere;
(f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion;
(g) if there is any other cause justifying her living separately.
(3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste of ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion.'
5. On bare reading of this provision, it is submitted that only, a wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband and, therefore, it is submitted that the relationship of wife and husband must be subsisting.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that a Hindu wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband during her lifetime and not only during the lifetime of marriage and the subsistence of marriage and it is submitted, that the words 'wife' and 'husband' are used in the section only to describe the relationship which gives the one to a claim of maintenance and in this connection, an analogy is drawn with Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act where also the same words 'husband and wife' are used even in the context of permanent alimony and maintenance after decree for divorce and it is submitted that the Legislative intention behind Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 is the same and cannot be different. Section 25 also provides for maintenance during the lifetime even after the status of husband wife is lost and marriage is dissolved and even it contemplates application for maintenance and for enhancement of maintenance long after decree for divorce and, therefore, there is no reason to give different meaning to the words 'husband' and 'wife' used in Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 because both the sections are using the same words 'husband and wife',
7. Originally, the Hindu marriage, succession minority, guardianship, adoption and maintenance were part of one Hindu Code Bill and later on they took statutory form by different Acts, but the Legislative intention to provide maintenance to the spouse even after divorce which is contained in Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has to be read into both the sections and provisions in both the Acts. Same Legislature cannot be imputed with two different intentions in respect of the same couple on the same question. Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, if the provision regarding maintenance is to be applicable, both to a wife and a divorced wife, there is no reason why the same word 'wife' which is used in Section 18 should not be read in the same manner because both these provisions deal with the question of maintenance between a husband and a wife. Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, there cannot be any doubt or dispute that the wife would necessarily include a divorced wife for the purposes of maintenance and alimony even though the section uses the words 'wife' or 'husband' and not 'divorced wife' or 'divorced husband' and it also provides for maintenance not exceeding the life of the applicant. Similarly, in Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, though the words used ar.e 'wife and husband', the maintenance is provided by the husband during the lifetime of the wife. Thus, the scheme of both these sections is the same; the purpose is the same; the words used are the same. Therefore, when the word 'wife' in Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act includes a divorced wife so also in Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the word 'wife' has to be interpreted to be a divorced wife. Any other construction would lead to anomalous and contradictory situations and orders. If the wife makes an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance even after divorce, that would be maintainable, but if she makes an application for the same purpose under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, it would not be maintainable even though both the provisions have same purpose in mind and the same intention to provide maintenance to the wife. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold that the words 'wife' and 'husband' are used to describe the relationship to provide for maintenance during the lifetime of the wife and it includes a divorced wife and by doing so, there is no violation done of the language or the meaning because the meaning is always to be taken from the context and intention. For example, a married woman living happily with her husband can be held to be a widow on the question of succession to the property of her former deceased husband and by describing her as widow, there is no violence done to her present marital status of having a husband and happily living with the husband because the meaning has to be given in the context of the purpose and the intention. Similarly, when a question of maintenance arises between a husband and a wife, it arises only in a situation where there are serious disputes between the husband and wife and which may arise before divorce or thereafter and legislature makes the provision for the same.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no difficulty in holding that Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act when it provides for maintenance for wife it includes a divorced wife. Therefore, the first contention that the application under Section 18 by the divorced wife is not maintainable has to be negatived.
9. The second contention that husband having obtained a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion by wife, she has become disentitled to maintenance also cannot be accepted. Firstly, the divorce has not become final. It is true that the decree for divorce has been passed and District Court has dismissed the appeal of the wife. However, the matter is pending in Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition by the wife which is admitted and rule is issued. It is also true that interim relief is not granted in that petition. Thus, the decree for divorce has not become final. Moreover, after the decree for divorce, there cannot be any desertion or continued desertion. Therefore, after the decree for divorce, if a question arises for maintenance, it has to be decided on all the facts and circumstances of the case and at this interim stage, it cannot be said that the wife is not entitled to maintenance.
10. On the question of quantum of maintenance, at this interim stage, no interference is called for in this revision application.
11. In the result, the revision application fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with costs.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the order of maintenance passed by the trial Court which had been stayed for all these years be stayed till 31-7-1994. By this time, the arrears of difference of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- p.m. comes to about Rs. 21,000/ - or more. The petitioner agrees to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in this Court within 15 days from today. In view of this assurance the order directing payment of maintenance is stayed till 31-7-1994 and the respondent shall not withdraw this amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited in this Court till 31-7-1994. By that time, if there is no stay from the Supreme Court, the respondent wife will be entitled to withdraw this amount and the office is directed to pay the same to her by an account payee cheque in her name.