SIVAKAMI AMMAL Vs. BANGARUSWAMI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by one Sivakami: Animal against her husband, Bangaruswami. Reddy, who has obtained a decree for dissolution, against her in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem, for giving her Rs. 100 a month as maintenance during the pendency of her appeal and Rs. 350 for her expenses in prosecuting the appeal. The petition has been made under Section 5. (7) of Madras Act 6 of 1949. It is opposed vigorously. The respondents' contentions are five, and I shall consider them 'seriatim' below.

(2.) The first is that the petitioner has deserted the respondent, and that the respondent will only be too happy if she were to live with him and to give him the conjugal rights lie is entitled to, and that therefore a woman like that should not be given relief under Section 5 (7). I am afraid that contention cannot be upheld in this petition because Section 5 (7) does not entitle the Court to go into an enquiry as to the moral merits of the husband and wife 'inter se' in a summary petition like this.

(3.) The second contention was that the petitioner has ceased to be a wife the moment the lower Court passed the decree for dissolution oL her marriage with the respondent, and that it is only a 'wife' who can apply for the relief under Section 5 (7) and so she cannot be given any relief. The argument is extremely ingenious but wholly unconvincing. Under our law, no order of, any Court is final, until the last appeal, revision or review, or writ, allowed by law and filed in lime, is decided. Therefore the lower Court's order dissolving the marriage is held in suspen-sion during the pendency of the appeal, and the petitioner's status as wife has not ceased, as is argued. Under our law, certain phrases are used which have got wider implications than they bear if literally interpreted. Thus, a man in continuous possession of land which became 'ryoti' land after the coining into operation of the Madras Estates Land Act or the amending Act of 1936 has been deemed to be in possession of ryoti land though at the time the possession began it had not become 'ryoti' land. The Privy Council and several High Court decisions are to that effect. They interpret the term "ryoti" as land which would be ryoti land under the Act subsequently passed. So too, the word "wife" in Section 5 (7) must mean a person who would have been a wife but for the decree of divorce or dissolution passed in the trial Court. Else, much of. the meaning and content of Section 5 (7) (c) will be taken away, and Section 5 (7) (c) will remain an attenuated and anaemic provision.