Ensuring Maintenance of Hindu Woman: A legal Study

Ensuring Maintenance of Hindu Woman: A Legal Study

Bilashi Shaha

Islamic University, Bangladesh

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000152

Received: 26 May 2025; Accepted: 02 June 2025; Published: 04 July 2025

ABSTRACT

The right to maintenance is an important issue in Hindu law of Bangladesh and India. This right is to be given women for securing dignity livelihood in society. This provision ensures economic support and sustains her rights to live with dignity specially in the time of the separation, abandonment or widowhood. By this article it explores the statutory and judicial mechanisms that safeguard maintenance rights emphasizing the evolving interpretations by courts to uphold gender justice. It also highlights those challenges which are obstacle to ensure maintenance of woman like delay enforcement, social stigma, lack of awareness and proper implementation of rules and regulation.

INTRODUCTION

From the concept of marriage, the family and house spring out. The husband is obliged to furnish a roof and further protection, which the wife enjoys while remaining under the roof and ensuring the growth of the family. The bond of husband and wife, their respective obligation and duties, loyalty, love, chastity and care are all the party of the same, a bond of the social plain that ensures the character of either the husband or the wife. The Hindu wife is enjoined to share her life and love, joys and sorrows, and the troubles of her husband and to render selfless service, unstinted devotion, and profound dedication to her husband^[1]. Corresponding responsibility of the husband also accrued the moment the wife entered the houses i.e. to protect the wife, to give her a house, provide her with comfort and necessities of life within his means to treat her kindly and not cruelty and inhumanly and to discharge the duties arising out of marital relations. In cope with this maintenance of women is an issue. It is a legal and moral obligation to provide maintenance and financial support of woman. Despite progressive legal framework many Hindu woman still face challenges to demand sufficient maintenance due to social, economic and procedural barriers. This article explores legal provision, judicial interpretation and practical mechanisms that aims to ensure the maintenance of Hindu women, awareness to secured their dignity and financial independence.

Significance of the Study

Maintenance refers to the payment by which a man is under an obligation to give his family. Although maintenance should be gender neutral and should be applicable both man and women respectively for the greater perspective of the society but still many women are being denied to claim their rights of maintenance. Rights of woman has been restored but it will become fruitful only when mind setup of the society is changed. The women should develop themselves educationally, economically and socially for their wellbeing. A significant legal provision addressing the maintenance rights of Hindu women in Bangladesh is the Hindu Married Women’s Rights to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act of 1946.  In India, section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure 1973, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956. Despite this provision Hindu women faced several challenges due to absence of comprehensive personal laws relating to family matters. This Act provide a foundation for Hindu women’s rights to maintenance and separate residence there is pressing need for comprehensive legal reform to address gender inequalities.

Problem of the Study

At first, this state is culture based and in the family system women are to be cared and maintained by the family. Women are considered as weaker sex of the society by playing role as mother, daughter, wife and sister and at the same time they are served to their family without demanding financial benefit in present or future. Secondly, the female is the symbol of sacrifice and have strongest emotional support system of family in any situation. For this reason, society always expects such benefits without any economic and social evaluation. Thirdly, at the time of old age when there is no children or life partner to support her emotionally and economically. There are various legal rules and regulation has been made but no effective mechanism is to be prescribed for the execution of such rules and regulation. Fourthly, the separated women and widow are not be maintained practically as the statutory provisions mentioned clearly. Because of long terms court proceedings and social insecurity.  Overall, the study is limited by the availability of reported judgement, lack of codified Hindu personal laws in Bangladesh and small number of maintenance cases brought before the court. Furthermore, the sensitivity around personal laws among minority communities constrained direct access to affected individuals.

Object of the Study

• To identify the origin of the concept of maintenance for Hindu married women.
• To compare various statutory provisions and family laws regarding maintenance of women.
• To find out lacunae of existing legal system on maintenance for Hindu married women and to examine the contrast the legal frameworks governing maintenance rights for Hindu married women in both countries.
• To determine the causes of non-paying the maintenance to the Hindu married women.
• To investigate how court in Bangladesh and India interpret enforce maintenance laws provides insight into the practical realization of these rights.
• Understanding the role of socio-cultural factors in shaping the enforcement and perception of maintenance rights is crucial.
• To compare the status and lifestyle of women on which she lives.
• To suggest remedial measures to remove sufferings of a woman whose husband is unable physically and mentally to provide her maintenance.
• To propose policy reforms and legal amendments to enhance the protection of maintenance rights for Hindu married women.

Hypothesis

• What are the necessities of Maintenance for Women in general?
• How do the legal provision for the maintenance of Hindu married women in Bangladesh and India differ and how do cultural norms impact the enforcement of these laws?
• To what extent does a Hindu Married woman get maintenance and what are the barriers to accessing maintenance rights for women?
• From which sources wife can claim maintenance in the case of physical and mental disability of husband?
• Is it necessary to implement existing family and statutory law relating to maintenance of Hindu married women in Bangladesh and India?
• How does the socioeconomic status of Hindu married women influence their ability to claim maintenance in both Bangladesh and India?
• How do judicial attitude in Bangladesh and India reflects gender equality in cases involving the maintenance of Hindu married women?

METHODOLOGY

This study adopts a qualitative doctrinal research approach to examine the legal framework, judicial interpretation and socio-cultural challenges related to the maintenance rights of Hindu women in Bangladesh.  This methodology involves primary and secondary sources of data. The primary sources of data include statutory laws, personals laws and case laws. Basically, there is analyses The Hindu Married Women’s Right to separate Residence and Maintenance Act of 1946, The Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act of 1856, The relevant Provisions of the Hindu Succession Laws and judicial decision of the court interpreting maintenance rights. For secondary sources, a review of academic articles, law commission report, NGO publication and legal commentaries was conducted to understand this provision.

Wife

The word wife has not been defined specifically in any law. But the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955^[2] a Hindu woman whose marriage is solemnized with a Hindu man and is not void or dissolved by a decree or divorce. The wife is the central figure in the maintenance law under traditional Hindu and statutory law. From traditional law, the liability of the husband to maintain his wife is personal in nature. The obligation of the Hindu husband to maintain his wife does not arise out of any contract or implied, but out of the status of marriage, out of the relationship of husband and wife created by the performance of marriage.

Marriage must be legal

It is exclusively clear that in order to claim the maintenance the woman must have the status of wife and she must be legally wedded to the person against whom the claim is made.^[3] In ancient Hindu law the right being absolute and personal in nature, exist irrespective of any property whether ancestral or self-acquired.^[4] In patriarchal societies, it has been considered imperative for the wife to live with her husband and perform all conjugal duties. The husband’s obligation to support his wife begins with their marriage. A wife who lives with her husband is entitled to financial maintenance from him. It is not a valid reason to deny this support simply because the husband is facing financial difficulties, as this obligation is personal.^[5] Where an immature wife lives with her parents, the husband’s obligation to maintain her subsists. The word of wife includes a divorced wife. If a divorced wife makes an application, she would be maintainable. The words wife and husband are used to describe the relationship and provide maintenance during the lifetime of the wife and the divorced wife.^[6].

Obula Konda Reddl v. C. Pedda Venkata Lakshmma^[7] section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 cannot be interpreted to mean only a wife whose marriage is valid according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Hindu wife contemplated by section 18 means a wife whose marriage is solemnized though void under this Act. She will be, therefore, entitled to claim maintenance from the husband.

Rajeshbai v. Santabai,^[8] The word wife or widow in the context of marriage, succession or maintenance enactment is restrictive in legal character and implies a relationship that results from a recognized legal mode of marriage and would not include a relationship that is not recognized by law.

Separate living and Claim Maintenance:

Maintaining a wife by her husband put a reciprocating duty upon her to stay with her. But it does not mean that she is bound to stay with him after facing all the odds and humiliations, which makes it impossible for a person with normal prudence to live a healthy, balanced life. A wife cannot claim the right to live separately from her husband unless she demonstrates that his misconduct, refusal to support her in their shared residence, or another valid reason forces her to live apart from him.^[9] The Orissa High Court^[10] a Hindu wife is bound to live with her husband under the same roof and protection of her husband, as has been held in a large number of cases. There are various grounds incorporated under section 2 of the Hindu Married Women’s Rights to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act of 1946, which is to be applicable in Bangladesh. In India, this Act, along with the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956, is applicable. These grounds are to be studied.

Desertion

Desertion is to be defined as abandoning her wish or willfully neglecting her.^[11] In general desertion begins when the fact of separation of husband and wife is complete with the motive to bring the marital relationship permanently to an end^[12]. The distinction between desertion as a ground for living separately and as a ground for judicial separation^[13] is that desertion must be at least two years long, while later, it may be any duration. In case of desertion, the wife must prove some point of facts, firstly, that the husband has abandoned her without any reasonable cause, without her consent or against her wish; secondly, that he is guilty of willfully neglecting her. In Rai v. Ramniga Naik^[14] When a husband brings a prostitute into the home where his wife resides, resulting in the wife leaving the house, the husband is guilty of desertion. In Neelam Singh v. Vijaya Narain Singh^[15] the husband was a bank manager but was not keeping his wife to himself and also did not provide any means to maintain social and financial status. She was compelled to live in the village. The court held that it amounted to a desertion. For this reason, the court declared that she would be entitled to maintenance depending upon the circumstances and modes of the life of the parties. Here, an active withdrawal from cohabitation and breaking off the marital relationship is an indication of the husband’s intention to forsake his wife.

Cruelty

Cruelty is defined as behavior so severe and significant that a wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with her husband. It must be more serious than the typical challenges that occur in a marriage. Isolated incidents demonstrating a short temper or erratic behavior are not enough to qualify as cruelty^[16].  In Kousalya v. Vaisaki Ram^[17] held that new rules of social behavior and conduct with respect to the status of women in the Indian society of today have to be recognized and kept in mind while deciding what would really amount to cruelty. Where the mother-in-law misbehaved, and the wife suffered, it is no defense for the husband to say that his mother was responsible as he is to protect his wife, and this would amount to mental cruelty. In Kanthimathi v. S.P. Iyer^[18] held that the wife, for the first time, alleges cruelty by her husband for her separate living only in the suit for maintenance even though she has been living separately from her husband for a long time. It is a circumstance that disproves her allegation.

Husband Suffering from Virulent form of Leprosy

The word virulent is not a medical term. It is a description of a disease that spreads quickly and extensively over the patient’s body. Under the traditional Hindu law, it is considered as a disqualification of the person from taking part in inheritance when it is serious and of ulcerous kind which could be considered virulent or aggravated types of Leprosy. Any leprosy that leads to deformity and unfitness for sexual intercourse could be considered virulent as a ground for exclusion from inheritance. But the Hindu Inheritance(Removal of Disabilities) Act^[19] no person according to the Hindu Traditional law, is disqualified from inheritance such blindness, deafness, dumbness or without any limb or organ, lunacy, Leprosy and other incurable disease shall not so be disqualified unless he was from birth, a lunatic or an idiot. Leprosy is to be ground for separate maintenance and makes the man unfit for social intercourse. It may be of any duration, but it must exist at the time of claiming separate residence and maintenance.^[20]

Husband having Another Wife

A Hindu married woman was entitled to maintenance if her husband married again^[21]. In laxmi Ammal v. Narayanaswami^[22] the words were merely descriptive of the position of the husband as a twice-married man at the date when the wife’s demand for separate maintenance is made under the Act and do not exclude the case of a husband who had taken a second wife before the Act came into force. Madana Valli v. Balu Padmanabham^[23] The provision for maintenance for a wife would apply in cases where the marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Act of 1956, which entitled the wife to claim separate residence and maintenance where her husband has another wife living. Any other wife living gives a wide connotation and brings within its scope a wife married before this Act came into force. In Ram Prakash v. Savitri Devi^[24]  The court followed the decision, holding that section 2 of the Act of 1946 does not apply to a case where the husband married before the Act.

Keeping Concubine

Keeping a concubine or living with concubine are extreme forms of living in adultery. In either case, the wife has the right to live separately and seek maintenance from her husband.^[25] A concubine is defined as a woman who is in a permanent and exclusive relationship with a man, without being married to him. If the husband frequently visits the residence of a concubine it amounts to habitual residence with her.^[26] If the husband is having illicit relations with another woman, the wife and children are entitled to demand maintenance from the husband.^[27] If the Husband causes the rapture of this relation by developing amorous connection outside the wedlock he is clearly answerable to wife under this cause. The wife remains chaste and upholds the marriage and the law assures the wife all protection and compels the fallen spouse to furnish her a separate roof and all the need for her maintenance.^[28]

Conversion from Hindu

To demand maintenance under this Act, the parties should be Hindus. A wife is to claim separate residence and maintenance if the husband has ceased to be Hindu by converting to another religion. One person does not cease to be Hindu merely because one declares that one has no faith in Hindu religion, he will also not cease to be Hindu even if he expresses his faith in other religion and starts professing. Thus, ceasing to be Hindu is hardly material except in case of conversion.^[29]  The conversion only takes place when a person undergoes the formalities of the faith to watch he seeks conversion. Sincerity of conversion or genuineness of belief in the new faith is immaterial. It is also not necessary that the respondent after the conversion should be practicing his new faith.^[30]

Any Other Justifiable Cause

The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act^[31] states such justifiable cause which is also explained in the Hindu Marriage Act^[32] as reasonable cause.  In Keshabai v. Haribhan^[33] the conduct of the husband should be such that in the opinion of the court, the wife has a grave and weighty and convincing reason for withdrawing from the society of the husband, and it would amount to justifiable cause. It is submitted that all those cases where the court may refuse the husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights will be covered under this clause, which entitles a wife to claim separate residence and maintenance from the husband. In Gurdev v. Sarwan Singh^[34] The tests as to what constitutes reasonable cause for the wife to live separately from her husband vary with the circumstances of each case. It would have to be applied to the changed social conditions of today and not to the rigid background of the texts of Hindu law^[35]. In Asha v. Baldev Raj Hansda^[36] It is well-settled that to constitute a just cause to live separately, the conduct of the husband must be grave and weighty, and every matrimonial conduct that may cause annoyance to her or to resist by her does not amount to a reasonable or justifying cause and conduct should be such which makes living together virtually impossible.

Ceasing to be a Hindu

A Hindu wife loses her right to separate residence and maintenance if she converts to another religion. Once she ceases to be a Hindu, she forfeits her entitlement to separate maintenance. This cessation of Hindu status does not occur due to loss of caste or a decline in religious observance; it only applies when she converts to a different religion.

Unchastity

If the wife is living in adultery and deemed to be unchaste or living apart from her husband’s family for immoral or improper purposes, she is not entitled to maintenance.^[37] Unchastity on the part of the wife is a sin against the ethics of matrimonial morality in society. Moral law is not a positive civil law, but there may be instances where the law and morality meet. In Ilata v. Narayana^[38],  held that the wife loses her rights due to unchaste behavior, even if protected by a decree or agreement. But a mere single act of adultery does not amount to unchastity. A wife who is unchaste at the time of the legal proceedings is not entitled to any form of maintenance, even the most basic support.

Not Normal Behavior

In SilaNath v. Haimabuthy^[39] held that a woman is not entitled to separate maintenance if the husband is willing to keep her in his house and she denies to accept his offer without sufficient justification.

Concubine

The old Hindu Law recognized the concept of concubines and the woman who was living permanently exclusive keep had a special status. A concubine, who had been kept continuously by the Hindu till the time of his death was entitled for maintenance, irrespective of the fact that it was ancestral or self-acquired property of her paramour.^[40] It is laid down that neither a casual nor an adulterous connection entitles a woman for maintenance and even a discarded concubine has no right to claim any maintenance from her paramour or otherwise from his property. It is also not required that she had stayed with her paramour in his own house where the family member stays.^[41] The position of concubine was just below the wife. It was a peculiar condition in the Hindu law that a concubine could claim the maintenance not from the paramour but only against his estate that too after his death, only if she was staying along with him as a concubine till the time of his death, because had he been living he might have discarded her and as discussed earlier too, a discarded concubine has no right to claim maintenance and vice versa too. In the case of Haidri v. Narindra,^[42] it was held that in order to be an Avaruddhastree, she must be a concubine with whom the deceased had open and recognized connection and whom he had kept as a member of his own family. But later in BaiNagu bai v. Baimonghi bai,^[43] it was laid down that it was not necessary that the concubine should stay in the house of the paramour with his wife and other family members

Coparcener’s Widows

The ‘Widow’s’ right of maintenance, in the case when she isn’t the successor of her husband’s property, is of utmost importance and she could claim maintenance out of her husband’s separate property and from the coparcenary property. In such a case the liability to maintain her would lie upon the Karta. She did not lose her right to maintenance out of her husband’s estate although she may live apart from him during his lifetime without any justifiable reason and even at the time of his death she was staying away from him.^[44] Widow is entitled to maintenance from her son, in her character as mother, even though he does not hold any ancestral property.^[45] Even a stepmother had a right to claim maintenance from her stepson if the portion or share of his father is allotted or devolved upon him. In case where the widow of a deceased Hindu obtained a decree for maintenance with a charge on the joint family property, it was binding on her stepson subsequent to the partition of the joint family property.^[46] Nobody except a widows own son was under a Personal and Legal obligation to maintain her and in all other cases she was liable to be maintained out of her husband’s estate, the reason being that they have inherited her husband’s property. It is required that a widow to be maintained out of the husband’s property.

Maintenance to Widow

Under The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 the Widows of deceased coparceners in a Mitakshara Family become entitled to their husband’s interest in non-agricultural property. “If the Act conferred upon the widow the right of succession in respect of all her husband’s property, the right of maintenance allowed to her under the Hindu law as compensation for her exclusion from inheritance would no longer be available. However, the widow still stands excluded from succession to the agricultural land in the absence of provincial legislation on the parallel lines with respect to such land. It cannot be therefore, be said that the reason of the right has ceased to exist and the right is gone”.^[47] Later, when various enactments of the Provincial Acts made the Act applicable to the agricultural land, the law as to the maintenance of widows of coparceners or of divided members, whether under Dayabhaga or Mitakshara will, in the course of time, becomes obsolete. The Act, being not retrospective in nature, kept on governing the right to maintenance of widows of coparceners and divided members, which were vested in them before the Act came into force. It was also laid down that the claim of the widow as far as the maintenance is concerned was not affected by her share of the property under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 until she claimed the partition. It was open to her to claim maintenance or open the partition as whatever was more favorable to her.

Daughter-in-Law

In Hindu law, since the conception of civilization, the obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law has remained in the joint family. A widowed daughter-in-law had the right to claim maintenance out of joint family property. The claim could be enforced against the Karta as long as the daughter-in-law had the right to claim maintenance from the property in the hands of the father-in-law. According to the Ancient texts, there was no distinction between the moral duty and the legal duty. It developed at a later stage and has been well accepted now, including Privy Council. If the father-in-law has inherited the self-acquired property of his son, he will be under a legal obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law, and in case he has not acquired any such property, he will be under a moral obligation. Hindu law recognizes it as a moral duty of the father-in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law as long as she remains incapable of doing so and who has no means of subsistence. After the death of the father-in-law, the obligation rested upon the persons who inherited the property of the father-in-law, and the moral duty turned into legal duty.^[48]

Children

Begetting children in the ancient times was considered to be paying off one’s debts and having children was one of the most important features of the Indian Society. A woman without children was stigmatized as barren, a witch and she was not even considered to be worth having company of her husband. Having children was considered to be an aim for marriage.  Upbringing and maintaining children is one of the utmost important and one of the personal obligations which arises as soon as the bond comes into existence. The obligation on a Hindu to maintain his minor sons is of personal character. He is not only bound to maintain them out of joint family property, but also from the separate or self-acquired property too. However in case of his major sons, he is not having any such obligation, therefore he is not bound to maintain them out of the property which belongs exclusively to him.^[49] However if the father as well as the sons are members of the Joint Family under the Mitakshara School and they do hold the Joint Family property, the sons even they are adult will be entitled for maintenance out of Joint Family property, since they use to acquire the share in the property as soon as they were born and the liability would not confined to the extent of the share they would have got at the time of the partition.^[50] However, in the cases governed by the Dayabhaga law, a father was under no obligation to maintain his major son’s neither out of ancestral nor out of self-acquired property, as in case of Dayabhaga Law, the right to property does not arise with the birth of a  son.^[51] Most of the old system used to acknowledge this obligation which was confined to the legitimate children only where as our old Hindu law moved one step ahead and acknowledged the liability of maintaining illegitimate children also. Illegitimate sons, when not entitled as heir are to be maintained, which could be secured by creating a charge on the family estate and in case of existence of any such estate, the illegitimate son is entitled to be maintained out of it not only after the death of the father but also during his life time.  The old Hindu law recognized the concept of concubines and the woman who was living permanently exclusive kept had a special status. Even the children born were having a special status.

Legitimate and Adoptive Daughters

The maintenance of legitimate daughters used to be personal obligations under the old Hindu Law. Even our sages have in unequivocal terms recognized this claim, in which the provision is to be made not only till her coverture but for the marriage expenses as well and in case the father is dead, she has right to maintenance from the separate property of the father.^[52] In the case of Luxmi v. Krishna,^[53] 58, the father was living separately with the second wife and the girl was staying with her natural mother. It was held to be a justifiable case and the girl was held to be entitled to claim maintenance though staying separate from the father. There was no provision in Old Hindu Law for the maintenance of illegitimate daughters; however, they could claim maintenance from the putative father under Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Thus, this point clears the air that the word illegitimates put in the Ancient Law would remain confined to illegitimate sons only and not the illegitimate daughters.

Aged Parents

Our culture stated the status of parents as that of God through sayings like “Matrudeo Bhava”, “Pitrudeo Bhava” etc. The famous “Shravankumar’s” story which was stated in “Ramayana” establishes this fact. Our culture considers them as first teachers. The foundation of our life is built up by them. So children should take care of them and respect them. It should be the moral duty of children to maintain their parents. Our traditional values and norms lay stress on showing importance and providing care for the aged. In a joint family system, all members are cared for by the family itself. Quoting Manu as cited in Mitakshara and Parasaramadhaviya says that: “It is declared by Manu that aged mother and father, the chaste wife and an infant child must be maintained by doing a hundred misdeeds”. So, the Mitakshara also lays down that, “where there may be no property but what has been self-acquired, the only person whose maintenance out of such property is compulsory are aged parents, wife and minor children”. ^[54]

Disqualified Heirs

Whenever a person was excluded from inheriting the joint family property owing to his own incapacities such as blindness, lunacy, idiocy, Leprosy etc., in such a case he will be entitled to claim maintenance not only for him but for his family as well from the property he would have inherited not being disable.

In Bangladesh, Matilalsarcar and others v. Brajabashi Biswas and others^[55], a wife or widow is entitled to maintenance out of the property of her husband or late husband as the case may be. If the husband dies, then she will be out of the husband’s estate. But the husband left no estate to her father-in-law, as he is morally bound to maintain. On the death of her father-in-law, she acquired a legal right to be maintained out of the estate.  The right of a widow to maintenance is conditional upon her leading a life of chastity. If she becomes unchaste, the right is forfeited; but if she returns to a moral life, she is entitled to starving maintenance.^[56] On the marriage, the wife is entitled to be maintained by the husband; after the death of her husband, out of his estate. If the husband left no estate, the father-in-law is bound to maintain her morally. On the death of the father-in-law, she acquires a right under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act 1937. The obligation of the father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law in only moral; but a moral obligation reopens into a legal obligation in the hands of those who inherit his property. But her rights to claim maintenance cease on her remarriage^[57].  A Hindu wife is entitled to be maintenance by her husband, whether he possess property or not. The husband’s duty to maintain his wife is inherent in their relationship, independent of whether he possesses any property, whether ancestral or self-acquired.^[58] Tripti LataKar v. Government of Bangladesh,^[59]A married daughter is ordinarily to be maintained in her husband’s family. But if they are unable to maintain her she is entitled to be maintained in her father’s family. The maintenance of wife and infant son is a personal obligation. A man is bound to maintain his aged parents, his virtuous wife and his minor children^[60]. Even all male member of the family, including those are excluded from inheritance claim maintenance.^[61] A Hindu is legally obligated to provide maintenance for individuals whom the deceased was either legally or morally required to support. This obligation arises because the estate is inherited with the duty to continue such maintenance.^[62] Nirmal Kanti Das v. Sreemati Biva Rani,^[63] a Hindu wife is entitled to bring a suit for maintenance in the family court. The provisions of this ordinance have not curtailed the power given to magistrate under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The obligation to maintenance extends even to the government when the government takes the estate by escheat or by forfeiture.^[64]

Suggestion

• A husband is obligated to support his wife as long as she is faithful and follows his reasonable requests. This provision applies specifically to Muslims in Bangladesh. For Hindus, similar regulations should be followed to ensure maintenance for women.
• Legal reform for uniformity and efficacy of Hindu personal law including maintenance during marriage and separation; rights to alimony or support after abandonment; legal ground for divorce and remarriage.
• Introduce maintenance provision in civil and criminal law like India.
• Strengthening legal aid and spreading awareness programs at the grassroot level as they know their rights and available legal remedies.
• Engage religious and civil society leaders to support the implementation of this provision.
• Strict enforcement and penalty for non-compliance.
• Consideration of inflation and lifestyle changes in determining maintenance.
• Strengthening family courts and alternative dispute mechanisms to hear Hindu women right to claim maintenance and ensuring access to justice.
• Empowering women economically through education and employment.
• Temporary government or NGOs support for interim financial support for destitute and abandoned Hindu women.

CONCLUSION

Maintenance is essential not just as legal relief but as a constitutional and human rights. The legal framework in Bangladesh aim to uphold the rights of maintenance but some implementation is to be needed.  At the same time, despite legal safeguards , enforcement challenges, social stigma and lack of awareness often hinder their access to rightful maintenance. While Indian laws provide a reasonable framework, better enforcement, awareness and reforms are needed to ensure justice for Hindu women. Overall, ensuring maintenance of Hindu women not only reinforces legal protection but also promotes broader goals of gender equality and social justice in society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Agarwala, R K  ,Hindu Law, Central Law Agency, Allahbad, 12^th,Edition,1998.
• Aggarwal, S.N,The law of Maintenance, revised by the S.K..Sarkar, Fourth Edition
• Agnees, Flavia,Defending Women’s Rights to Maintenance,Majlis,2011
• Bathla and Bathla  ,Maintenance- Marriage –Divorce,1978.
• Banerjee,Marriage and Stridhana, 5^th edition.
• Ben, B.P  ,Law of Marriage and Divorce in India, 2^nd,Ed.,1989
• Bailee, M.Hindu Law
• Chakraborty, Dr. G ,Law of Maintenance,2003
• Das, P.K. ,Handbook on Hindu Succession( Property Rightof Women and Daughters),Universal law,Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, Delhi,2007.
• Desai, Humund ,Indian Law of Marriage and Divorce, 4^th Ed.,1981.Dhaka-1100.
• Diwan, Dr.Paras ,Modern Hindu Law,Sixteenth Edition,2005
• Ehandha ,Hindu Law
• Gupta, S.V ,Hindu Law, Agra, Sunil Law Academy, Vol.2,3^rd Edition,1981
• Jhabhavala,Noshirvan H ,Principles of Hindu law, C. Jamnadas andco.146-c.
• Jai, JanakRaj ,ShaBano, New Delhi, Rajiv Publication, 1986
• Mahamood, Tahir, Studies in Hindu Law, 1981.
• Mookerjee, A, Marriage, Separation and Divorce, 3^rdEdition,2002
• Pal, RadhaVinod ,History of Hindu Law in the Vedic Age and inPost-Vedic Times down., Calcutta, University ofCalcutta, 1958
• Patwari, Dr.A.B.M.Mofizul Islam , Hindu Ainer Mulniti,2^nd edition, Mollika, Publishing House, 68 Dhaka University Market. Sonargaon Road,Katabon, Dhaka1000,Bangladesh.
• R.C Nagpal ,Modern Hindu law
• Routh, S.K, Elements of Hindu Law,2^nd edition 2008
• Sarkar, U.C ,An Introduction of Hindu Law, 1974,Eastern Law House,1953
• Saharay, H.K. Law of Marriage and Divorce, 4^th Ed., 1999
• Sharma, B.K ,Divorce Law in India, 1989
• Tyagi,SurendraPrakash ,Law of Maintenance, 2^nd Ed., 1996

BOOKS

Agarwala, R.K., Hindu Law (Codified and Un Codified), (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 21 st Edition, 2006).

• Aggarwal, Nomita, Women and Law in India, (New Century Publications, Delhi, 1 st Edition, 2002).
• Agnes, Flavia, Law and Gender Inequality: The Politics of Women’s Rights in India, (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1999).
• Ahmad, Aquil, Mohammedan Law, (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 21 st Edition, 2004).
• Ahuja, Ram, Indian Social System, (Rawat Publications, Jaipur, 1993).
• Aiyer, V.R. Krishna, On the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 1987).
• Ajijola, Alhaji A.D, Introduction to Islamic Law, (Adam Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 2007).
• Baillie, Neil B.E., Digest of Moohummudan Law, Vols. I & II, (Smith Elder & Co., London, 1875).
• Bhattacharjee, A.M., Hindu Law and the Constitution, (Eastern Law House, Calcutta, 1 st Edition, 1985).
• Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume-I, (St. Paul West Publishing Company, 1897). B – 2
• Derrett, John DuncunMartin , A Critique of Modern Hindu Law, (N.M. Tripathi Private Limited, Bombay 1970).
• Diwan, Paras &Diwan, Peeyushi, Indian Personal Laws, (Wadhwa and Company, 1 st Edition, 1993).
• Diwan, Paras &Diwan, Peeyushi, Muslim Modern Law in India, (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 9 th Edition, 2008).
• Diwan, Paras &Diwan, Piyushi, Family Law, (Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2 nd Edition, 1994).
• Diwan, Paras &Diwan, Piyushi, Modern Hindu Law, (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 21 st Edition, 2012).
• Diwan, Paras, Women and Legal Protection, (Deep & Deep Publication, New Delhi, 2004). B – 3
• Haskafi, Muhammad Ala-ud-din, Durr-Ul-Mukhtur,(KitabBhawan, New Delhi,1992).
• Fyzee, Outlines of Mohammedan Law, (Oxford University Press, Delhi, 4 th Edition, 1974).
• Malik, Shailendra, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 18 th Edition, 2011).
• Mallick, M.R., Maintenance Law & Practice, (Eastern Law House, Kolkata, 2012).
• Mayne, Hindu Law and Usages, (Bharat Law House, New Delhi, 16 th Edition, 2010).
• Mishra, S., Women’s Health and Social Issues, (Arise Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 1 st Edition, 2011).
• Misra, S.N., The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Central Law Publication, Allahabad, 15 th Edition. 2008).
• Mookerjee, Asutosh, Marriage Separation and Divorce, (Kamal Law House, Kolkata, 3 rd Edition, 2002).
• Mulla, Muhammadan Law, (Lexis NexisButtersworth Publishers, New Delhi, 20 th Edition, 2014).
• Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law, (Lexis NexisButtersworth Publishers, New Delhi, 21 st Edition, 2010). B – 5
• Nasir, Jamal J., The Status of Women under Islamic Law & Modern Islamic Legislations, (IDC Publishers, Netherlands, 3 rd Edition, 2009).
• Padia, Chandrakala, Women in Dharamasastras, (Rawat Publications, Jaipur, 2009).
• Raghvachariar, N.R., Hindu Law, Vol. 1, (Madras Law Journal, Bombay, 7 th Edition. 1980).

1. V. Talasamma v. V Sesha Reddy, AIR 1977 SC 1944.
2. section 18.
3. NatesaChettiar v. AtchiyayiAmmal, AIR 1991, Cal 399
4. Ibid
5. Jayanti v. Alamelu(1904) 27 Mad 45.
6. Vikas Pandey v. Smt Vandita Gautam AIR 2013 All 28.
7. AIR1976 AP 43
8. AIR 1982 Bom 231
9. Sitnath v. Haimabutty, 24 WR 367.
10. Pankajini Das v. Hrusaikesh AIR1986 Ori 184
11. esction 18(20 of Hindu marriage Acxt of 1955
12. Pankajini Das v. Hrusaikesh AIR 1986 Ori 184
13. under section 10 and 13 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955
14. AIR 1995 All 214
15. AIR 1955 All 214
16. Nirmala v. Manohar Shivaram AIR 1991 Bom 259
17. AIR 1961 Punj 521
18. AIR 1974 Ker 124
19. 1928
20. Ibid
21. Hindu Married woman’s separate Residence and Maintenance Act ,1946
22. ILR(1950) Mad 321
23. AIR 1960 Mys 299
24. AIR 1958 Pun 327(FB)
25. Rajathi v. Ganesan, 1999 SC 2374
26. Kesarbari v. Hariban AIR 1975 Bom 115
27. Rajeshwari s. Shende v. Suryakant S. Shinde, 2001(2) HLR 452(KAR)
28. Ibid
29. Rajathi v. Ganesan 1999Sc 2374.
30. Ibid
31. 1956
32. 1955
33. 1974 Mah LJ 924
34. AIR1959 Punj 162
35. AIR1985 Del 76
36. Bhagwankaur v. Bose 31 Cal 11 (pc)
37. 1 Mad 372
38. (1875) 24 WR 377
39. Supra note 6 at 1282.
40. Ibid.
41. AIR 1926 Ori 294.
42. AIR 1926 PC 73.
43. Id., at 748.
44. Subbarayanna v. Subbakka, (1885) 8 Mad 23
45. Subbarayanna v. Subbakka, (1885) 8 Mad 23
46. Veeraya v. Chellamma, ILR (1939) Mad 234.
47. Supra note 5 at 358
48. Supra note 3 at 738.
49. Id., at 739.
50. Ibid
51. BaiMangal v. BaiRukmani, ILR (1899) 23 Bom 291
52. AIR 1968 Mys 288.
53. Supra note 6 at 1223.  Also see JayantiSubbaiah v. Alamelu, (1904) 27 Mad 45; Appibai v. KhimjiCoodVerji (1936) 60 Bom 455, Savitribai v. Luxmibai (1878) 2 Bom 573. 60 Yashwant Rau v. KashiBai, 12 Bom 26.
54. 12 DLR(1960) Dac 142
55. 29 DLR 140 SC
56. 29DRL 140 SC, 31 DLR 180, 12 DLR 142 Dha.
57. 12DLR 142.
58. 31 DLR( 1979) 187
59. 13 DLR 150.
60. 28 DLR 426
61. 12 DLR 142 Dha 45 IA 148
62. (1994) 14 BLD(HCD) 413
63. 30 DLR(SC)139