In the given situation, Priya can claim maintenance from Rahul under Section 125 of the CrPC. Section 125(1)(a) states that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order the person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife.

To establish her claim, Priya needs to prove that Rahul has neglected or refused to maintain her despite his sufficient means and her inability to maintain herself. Once the Magistrate is satisfied with the proof of neglect or refusal, they can order Rahul to make a monthly allowance for Priya’s maintenance at a rate determined by the Magistrate. The Magistrate has the discretion to determine the appropriate amount based on the circumstances of the case (Section 125(1)).

In addition to the maintenance order, the Magistrate may also order interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceeding (Section 125(1) proviso, second paragraph). This interim maintenance is intended to support Priya’s immediate financial needs while the case is ongoing. The Magistrate can determine a reasonable monthly allowance for interim maintenance and the expenses of the proceeding, which Rahul would be required to pay to Priya (Section 125(1) proviso, second paragraph).

It is important for Priya to file an application for maintenance promptly and provide necessary evidence to support her claim. The court proceedings for monthly allowance for maintenance and interim maintenance should ideally be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to Rahul (Section 125(1) proviso, second paragraph).

In the given situation, Meera can claim maintenance from Ravi under Section 125 of the CrPC. The provision for maintenance under Section 125 extends to women who are unable to maintain themselves, including those who have been divorced or obtained a divorce from their husbands and have not remarried (Section 125(1)(a) read along with Explanation (b)).

The Supreme Court, in the case of Chanmuniya vs. Virender Kumar Singh Kushwaha (JT 2010 (11) SC 132), held that the term “wife” in Section 125 should be given a broad interpretation. It includes cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time. The court emphasised that strict proof of marriage should not be insisted upon as a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125.

Furthermore, in the case of Savitaben vs. State of Gujarat ((2005) 3 SCC 636), it was clarified that the term “wife” in Section 125 of the CrPC refers specifically to a legally married wife and does not include a woman who is not lawfully married. However, this should not prevent the courts from recognizing the rights of women in long-term live-in relationships. In such cases, there is a presumption of marriage between the parties involved (Madan Mohan Singh vs. Rajanikant, AIR 2010 SC 2933).

Considering the aforementioned principles, Meera can establish her claim for maintenance from Ravi based on their long-term live-in relationship. The court can presume the existence of a marriage-like relationship between them, and Meera’s entitlement to maintenance would be determined based on her inability to maintain herself.

It is important to note that the specific facts and evidence presented in the case would influence the court’s decision. Consulting with a legal professional and presenting all relevant evidence and arguments would be crucial in such a situation.

In the given situation, Aarti may have a valid claim for maintenance as a deemed wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provided that certain preconditions are met. The Supreme Court, in the case of Madan Mohan Singh vs. Rajanikant (AIR 2010 SC 2933), has recognized that long-term live-in relationships cannot be regarded as mere casual or temporary arrangements, and there is a presumption of marriage between the parties involved.

To be treated as a marriage under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, live-in relationships must fulfil specific preconditions, as stated in the case of D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (AIR 2011 SC 479). These preconditions include:
a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
b) They must be of legal age to marry.
c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

In Aarti’s case, as she and Ravi have been in a long-term live-in relationship for eight years, live together, share financial responsibilities, and present themselves as a couple to others, they may fulfil the preconditions mentioned above. Thus, Aarti may be considered a deemed wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and be entitled to claim maintenance from Ravi.

No, a Muslim husband is not relieved of his liability to maintain his divorced wife after the expiry of the iddat period. In the case of Danial Latifi and Another v. Union of India (2001 SC), the Supreme Court held that the obligation to provide maintenance continues even after the iddat period ends. The literal interpretation of Section 3(1) of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 does not restrict maintenance payment to only the iddat period. The husband is obligated to make a reasonable and fair provision for maintenance and pay it to the wife until she remarries.

Relevant case law:

Danial Latifi and Another v. Union of India (2001 SC)

Asha is entitled to maintenance despite her father’s bigamous marriage. According to the case of Bakulabai vs. Gangaram, (1988) SCC 537, if a Hindu male and female live together as husband and wife for a substantial period of time after a bigamous marriage, the child born from that union is considered legitimate under Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Consequently, the child is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Therefore, Asha, being the child of Ramesh, is entitled to maintenance from her father, regardless of the bigamous nature of his marriage.

Relevant case law:
Bakulabai vs. Gangaram, (1988) SCC 537

Aisha is entitled to receive interim maintenance until she attains the age of majority, even if she reaches majority during the pendency of the maintenance application. In the case of Shahbuddin vs. State of UP, 2006(1) ALJ 372(All), the court held that in cases where a minor daughter reaches the age of majority during the pendency of an application under Section 125 CrPC, she is entitled to receive interim maintenance until the date of attaining majority. This ensures that the financial needs of the minor daughter are adequately met during the course of the proceedings.

Relevant case law:
Shahbuddin vs. State of UP, 2006(1) ALJ 372(All)

In this situation, the relevant provisions are Section 125(1)(b) and the first proviso of Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 125(1)(b) states that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his minor female child, the Magistrate may order him to make a monthly allowance for her maintenance. This provision applies even if the minor female child is married.
However, the first proviso of Section 125(1) adds a condition to the application of Section 125(1)(b) in the case of a minor female child. The proviso states that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means, then the father of the minor female child can be ordered to provide maintenance until she attains her majority.
In the given situation, since Mr. Z, the husband of Ms. Y, does not possess sufficient means to maintain his wife, the Magistrate can invoke the first proviso of Section 125(1) and order Mr. X, Ms. Y’s father, to provide maintenance for his minor daughter until she becomes an adult.

Relevant sections and subsections:
Section 125(1)(b): Provides for the maintenance of a minor female child, even if she is married, by ordering the person having sufficient means (usually the father) to make a monthly allowance for her maintenance.
First proviso of Section 125(1): Allows the Magistrate to order the father of a minor female child to make such allowance if the husband of the minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.

In this situation, Mr. B, a legitimate child who has attained majority, suffers from a physical disability that prevents him from maintaining himself. Mr. A, his father, can approach the court seeking maintenance for Mr. B under Section 125(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 125(1)(c) states that a person, in this case, Mr. A as the father, is obligated to maintain their legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority if the child is unable to maintain themselves due to any physical or mental abnormality or injury.
Given that Mr. B is the legitimate child of Mr. A and has a physical disability that renders him unable to support himself, Mr. A can seek a court order for maintenance on behalf of his son. This provision recognizes the responsibility of parents to provide financial support to their children who, due to physical or mental limitations, cannot maintain themselves.
Relevant sections and subsections:
Section 125(1)(c): Provides for the maintenance of a legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, but is unable to maintain themselves due to any physical or mental abnormality or injury. The person responsible for the child’s maintenance, usually the father, is legally obliged to provide financial support.

In the given scenario, Mrs. Singh seeks maintenance from Mr. Singh under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Mr. Singh, in response, offers to maintain her but conditions it upon her living with him. However, Mrs. Singh refuses to live with him due to his involvement with another woman. Let’s analyse the relevant provisions and considerations in this situation.

According to the provision mentioned in the question, if the person ordered to pay maintenance offers to maintain his wife on the condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, the Magistrate can consider the grounds of refusal stated by her. Here are the key points to consider:

Magistrate’s discretion: The Magistrate has the discretion to consider the grounds of refusal stated by Mrs. Singh. The Magistrate will evaluate the reasons provided by her for refusing to live with Mr. Singh and assess their validity and reasonableness.

Just ground for refusal: The Magistrate can make an order for maintenance despite Mr. Singh’s offer if the Magistrate is satisfied that there are just grounds for Mrs. Singh’s refusal to live with him. The term “just ground” refers to valid and reasonable reasons that justify the wife’s refusal to live with her husband.

Husband’s involvement with another woman: The explanation provided in the section states that if a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered a just ground for the wife’s refusal to live with him. In this case, Mrs. Singh’s refusal to live with Mr. Singh due to his involvement with another woman is likely to be considered a just ground.

Based on the given information, Mrs. Singh’s refusal to live with Mr. Singh due to his involvement with another woman can be seen as a valid reason. The Magistrate can consider this ground and, if satisfied, make an order for maintenance under Section 125, notwithstanding Mr. Singh’s offer to maintain her on the condition of living together.

It is important to note that the final decision will depend on the specific facts and evidence presented before the Magistrate, and the Magistrate will evaluate the reasonableness of Mrs. Singh’s refusal in light of the circumstances and provisions mentioned in Section 125 of the CrPC.

Relevant sections: Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), including the relevant explanation.

In the given scenario, Mrs. Sharma seeks maintenance from Mr. Sharma under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Mr. Sharma, in response, offers to maintain her but conditions it upon her living with him. However, Mrs. Sharma refuses to live with him due to his involvement with another woman. Let’s analyse the relevant provisions and considerations in this situation.

The second proviso to Section 125(3) provides further clarity on the matter. According to this provision:

Offer to maintain wife on condition of living together: If the person ordered to pay maintenance offers to maintain his wife on the condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, the Magistrate can consider the grounds of refusal stated by her.

Magistrate’s discretion: The Magistrate has the discretion to consider the grounds of refusal and make an order under Section 125, even if the husband has made an offer to maintain the wife conditional upon living together. The Magistrate will assess the reasonableness and validity of Mrs. Sharma’s grounds for refusing to live with Mr. Sharma.

Just ground for refusal: The Magistrate can make an order for maintenance despite the husband’s offer if he is satisfied that there are just grounds for the wife’s refusal to live with him. The term “just ground” refers to valid and reasonable reasons that justify the wife’s refusal to live with her husband.

Husband’s involvement with another woman: The explanation provided in the section states that if a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered a just ground for the wife’s refusal to live with him. In this case, Mrs. Sharma’s refusal to live with Mr. Sharma due to his involvement with another woman is likely to be considered a just ground.

Based on the given information, Mrs. Sharma’s refusal to live with Mr. Sharma due to his involvement with another woman can be seen as a valid reason. The Magistrate can consider this ground and, if satisfied, make an order for maintenance under Section 125, notwithstanding Mr. Sharma’s offer to maintain her on the condition of living together.

It is crucial to note that the Magistrate will evaluate the circumstances and evidence presented before them to determine the reasonableness and validity of Mrs. Sharma’s refusal. Each case is unique, and the final decision will depend on the specific facts and arguments presented.

Relevant sections: Section 125(3) and the second proviso, along with the explanation provided.

In the given situation, where Rajiv has presented evidence that Rita is living in adultery, the Magistrate will need to consider the provisions outlined in Section 125(4) and (5) of the CrPC. Let’s examine how the Magistrate would handle this situation.

Section 125(4) of the CrPC states:

“No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, 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.”

According to this provision, if it is proven that a wife is living in adultery, without sufficient reason refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent, the wife is not entitled to receive maintenance under Section 125.

Section 125(5) of the CrPC states:

“On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.”

Under this provision, if it is proven that the wife, in whose favour an order for maintenance has been made, is living in adultery, unreasonably refuses to live with her husband, or they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate has the authority to cancel the maintenance order.

In the given situation, since Rajiv has presented evidence that Rita is living in adultery, the Magistrate will carefully evaluate the evidence and determine its credibility. If the Magistrate is convinced that Rita is indeed living in adultery, they have the discretion to cancel the maintenance order previously granted to her under Section 125.

It is important to note that the decision will depend on the strength and reliability of the evidence presented by Rajiv, as well as any arguments or explanations provided by Rita. The Magistrate will ensure a fair assessment of the situation based on the specific facts and circumstances presented before them.

Relevant sections: Section 125(4) and (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Mary can approach any Magistrate in the district where John currently resides to enforce the maintenance order. According to Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a copy of the maintenance order will be provided to Mary free of charge. The enforcing Magistrate will verify the identity of the parties involved and the non-payment of the maintenance allowance. Once satisfied, the Magistrate can take appropriate actions to enforce the order and ensure John complies with his obligation to pay maintenance to Mary.