THAMSI GOUNDAN Vs. KANNI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the husband against an order of maintenance passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Vellore, under Section 488. Criminal P. C., in favour of his wife. The petitioner has been ordered to pay Rs. .15 a month. There is a clear finding by the Magistrate that the petitioner has neglected and refused to maintain the respondent herein. After going through the records I am satisfied that the lower Court was justified in arriving at that conclusion. On the merits, therefore, there is no case for the petitioner herein.

(2.) The question that is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 488 Criminal P. C. is 'ultra vires' of the Constitution because the provision is only in favour of women without a similar provision in favour of men. In short his argument is that in the absence of a provision that the husband must in similar circumstances also be awarded maintenance from the wife, the provision is 'ultra vires'. He says that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution. I must at the outset say that a mere untenable argument could not have bean advanced by anyone appearing for the petitioner. On the face of it, it is ridiculous to suggest that husband must have a similar provision in his favour. What is meant by Article 14 of the Constitution has been stated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in 'Charan-Jit Lal v. Union Of India', 1951 S C J 29. His Lordship Mr. Justice Fazl Ali dealing with this article quotes with approval from Professor Willis's Constitution Law as follows:

(3.) The question is whether judged by this test. Section 488 Criminal P. C., can be said to have contravened the provision embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution. Can it be said that this-classification in favour of women, more particularly wives and that too deserted by their husbands is arbitrary, and that it does not bear a reasonable "and just relation to the things in respect to which the classification is made? The difference between men and women forms thebasis of the classification. Women as a whole suffer from several disabilities from which men do not suffer. They have no right at least under Hindu law to participate along with their brothers in the inheritance to the property of their parents. Even in England only after the passing of the Married Women's Property Act, their right to own property was recognised. Instances can be multiplied without number to show how women have not equal rights with men. That as a class they are weaker than men cannot also be disputed. In fact they are even called by the appellation "Weaker Sex". The very provision in Clause 3 of Article 15, that special provision may be made for women, suggests the existence of disparity. Section 488 is intended to prevent starvation of wives deserted by their husbands. It applies to all women in similar circumstances. Legislation therefore, in favour of this class of people cannot be said to be arbitrary. The provision, therefore, is not 'ultra vires' of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed.