M PSUBRAMANIYAM Vs. T TPONNAKSHIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises an interesting point of law regarding the interpretation of the term 'is living in adultery' appearing in Clause (4) of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent filed petition No. C. Mis. 37 of 1955 in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, claiming maintenance from her husband under Section 488, Cr. P. C. The husband, viz., the present petitioner, contended that he was not bound to maintain her and that she had disentitled herself to any maintenance by reason of her infidelity to him inasmuch as on 9-5-55 she was found to be in criminal intimacy with one Raman. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that adultery was proved on the part of the present respondent on two occasions. Relying on the rulings of certain High Courts, he further held that it does not amount to 'living in adultery' as contemplated under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On 6-7-56 he awarded maintenance at Rs. 15 per month from the present petitioner to the respondent. Being aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition has been filed by the husband.

(2.) When the matter came up for hearing before Padmanabhiah, J., apparently his Lordship was not quite satisfied with the interpretations of the High Courts on which the learned Magistrate had relied. One of the reasons that appears to have weighed with his Lordship is that almost all the Judges who decided, those cases were 'English Judges whose notions and standards of morality may not be the same as ours'. He, therefore, thought it fit to refer the case to a Division Bench 'to have an authoritative ruling of this Court on this point'. The case has therefore come to be placed before a Division Bench.

(3.) Clause (4) of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides: