DAVID DANIEL Vs. CHINNAMMA DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the husband against an order under S.488 Cr. P. C. awarding monthly maintenance of Rs. 50/- to the respondent wife. The parties are Christians and they were married in August, 1948. Their marital life was unhappy from the very beginning, as according to the petitioner his father inlaw was wantonly interfering in his family affairs and was trying to keep him under his thumb. This attitude of the father inlaw was resented by the petitioner and within about two weeks of the marriage the wife was taken away by her father to his house without the petitioner's consent. Some months thereafter, she returned, but in 1951 she again left her husband's house, and started residing with her father. She has never returned thereafter. No children were born to the couple. In 1952 she obtained a decree against the petitioner in O.S.88 of 1952 of the Mavelikara Munsiff's Court for recovery of her Stridhanam and in execution of it the immovable property given as Stridhanam, was restored to her. That was followed by O. S.54 of 1955 filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights which after a hot contest, was decreed in his favour. The decree gave one month's time for the wife to join her husband, failing which the husband was allowed to obtain possession of the wife through court. She did not join the husband as directed in the decree. So, execution was taken, but the execution petition was finally dismissed stating that there was no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for enforcing such a decree. In the interval, the wife had also instituted a suit 'in forma pauperis' against the petitioner for maintenance, but the suit was not admitted, as it was found that she had no cause of action to claim separate maintenance. About 15 years thereafter the present petition under S.488 was filed before the Magistrate claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs. 100/-. The petitioner is a postman getting a pay of Rs. 70 and an allowance of Rs. 71. He resisted the claim on various grounds, but the claim was finally upheld by the Magistrate, and the present order was passed allowing a monthly maintenance of Rs. 50/-.

(2.) The order is unsustainable. Learned Magistrate has proceeded as if the mere fact that the marriage is subsisting would entitle the wife to get separate maintenance. Separate maintenance can be claimed by the wife, only on proof of circumstances justifying her living away from the husband. All her grounds of a separate living were considered in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, and found against. About the physical cruelty attributed to the husband the learned Judge who decided the suit would observe: