GOVINDAN NAMBIAR Vs. DAKSHAYANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No error of law unless it be in favour of the appellant the respondent has neither appealed nor filed a memorandum of cross objection and no conflicting finding of fact.

(2.) The concurrent finding of fact of the courts below is that the respondent wife, now divorced, had, before the divorce, been guilty of a lapse, a solitary lapse, from virtue and that if this be not a valid ground for denying maintenance pendente lite under S.10A of the Madras Marumakkathyam Act (as amended by Kerala Act 26 of 1958 on the lines of S.24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 the Act for short ) or permanent alimony or maintenance under S.10B : the appellant husband should, having regard to the considerations mentioned in those sections, pay the respondent wife maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12/- per mensem. The first court holding that it was a valid ground for denying maintenance dismissed the wife's applications under those provisions; the lower appellate court while holding that it was not a ground for denying maintenance altogether considered that it was relevant in determining the quantum of maintenance and in that view granted the wife maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8/- per mensem in both applications on the analogy of the "starving maintenance" of the errant but reformed Hindu wife or widow. The husband has come with these second appeals S. A. No. 485 of 1963 in his appeal in the application under S.10A and S. A. No. 546 of 1963 in that under S.10B

(3.) The question whether an appeal lies at all from orders such as these has not been raised it has been assumed that the effect of S.10B of the Act is that such orders are to be regarded as decrees not merely for purposes of enforcement but also for purposes of appeal.