Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act. 1956 runs as follows :
18. "Maintenance of wife.-- (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 husband 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 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 living, or habitually resides 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 or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion."
Under Section 3 of that Act, maintenance includes-
(i) in all cases, provision 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.
I would, therefore,think that when we talk of maintenance and support, the definition of maintenance as given in the Act of 1956 should be adopted. Section 18 of the Act of 1956 also refers to maintenance of wife and gives the circumstances under which a Hindu wife is entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance
The petitioner, therefore, was under an obligation to make provision to his wife and minor child for food, clothing, residence, education as well as medical attendance and treatment. Supreme Court of IndiaRajesh Burmann vs Mitul Chatterjee (Barman) on 4 November, 2008.
.
27. In Atul Sashikant Mude v. Niranjana Atul Mude, AIR 1998 Bombay 234, the Court considered the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and held that a Court is empowered to pass interim and ad-interim orders of maintenance. It was held that the inclusive definition of the `maintenance' under the Act would include food, clothing, residence, education, medical attendance and treatment.
In Ajay Saxena v. Smt. Rachna Saxena, AIR 2007 Delhi 39, analysing the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Court held that in a suit under Section 18 of the Act, the wife can claim interim maintenance. It was further held that such interim maintenance may also cover expenses incurred towards medical treatment.
Orissa High CourtLaxmi Sahuani vs Maheswar Sahu on 19 April, 1984 Equivalent citations: AIR 1985 Ori 11. It was held that
"We are, therefore, of the view that the right conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 18 is subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said section. It, therefore, follows that a wife would lose her right of maintenance if she lives separate from her husband without the existence of any of the grounds or reasons mentioned in Sub-section (2). In other words, the wife would be entitled to separate residence and maintenance if her separate living is justified by one or more of the grounds mentioned in Sub-section (2). Further, she would not be entitled to any maintenance if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion, though she might have sufficient justification to live separately from her husband having any of the grounds as mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 18.
Once if the Court holds that there has been a divorce between husband and wife, whether a Court can grant maintenance under
Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956;
. "Therefore, once a wife is divorced, her remedy to seek maintenance is at the time of divorce in a matrimonial petition or subsequent thereto is only under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and she cannot have any recourse under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, inasmuch as, the precondition for application of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, for a wife to seek maintenance is that the marriage must be subsisting. Under these circumstances, I answer the first substantial question of law to the effect that a divorced wife cannot claim any maintenance under Hindu. Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and her only remedy is under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955."
Bombay High Court Panditrao Chimaji Kalure vs Gayabai Panditrao Kalure on 27 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: AIR 2001 Bom 445, 2002 (2) MhLj 53