SAMUEL STEPHEN RICHARD Vs. STELLA RICHARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 25, Guardians and Wards Act.

(2.) The facts are: The Petitioner Samuel Stephan Richard married the respondent Stella Richard on 28-5-1941. Both are Protestant Indian Christians and the Petitioner is an employee in the East Asiatic Company, Madras, drawing a salary of Rs. 75/- and clearness allowance of Rs. 47-8-0 per month and the respondent is a school mistress in an aided higher elementary school drawing a salary of Rs. 50/per month. Out of this union a daughter Priscilla was borne on 20-4-1942. They were living amicably in Chintadripet, Madras. Then after the father of the petitioner died in June 1951, the petitioner and respondent moved to Pudupet and started living with the mother and sister of the petitioner. On account of the differences between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, apparently separate cooking seems to have been set up. This did not solve the problem and there seems to "have been bitter quarrels between the husband and the wife. Finally, on 31-7-1953 the respondent left her husband taking with her her daughter. Then this respondent filed a petition under Section 488, Criminal P.C., M.P. No. 836 of 1953 in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, claiming a maintenance of Rs. 35/- p. m. for herself and Rs. 20/- p. m. for her minor daughter. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate dismissed this petition taking a narrow view of "cruelty" entitling the respondent herein to refuse to live with her husband and to get maintenance. Cruelty in Section 488 is not limited to personal violence causing danger to life, limb or health bodily or mental or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger. Where an act of violence is found to be such as to found a reasonable belief of further violence or where it is of a very grave character itself the wife is entitled to relief. Even an accumulation of minor acts of illtreatment causing or likely to cause suffering to the spouse to break down under the strain constitutes cruelty. If moral force is systematically exerted to compel the submission of a wife, to such a degree and so long as to injure her health, although there be no actual violence, it amounts to legal cruelty. Under the previous code cruelty recognised was legal cruelty as defined by the courts -- 'Rukmin v. Pearelal', 11 AH 480 (A). Under the present Code which does not contain the word 'cruelty' a systematic course of, illtreatment and oppression is a good ground for the wife's refusal. --'Mt. Kaluya v. Him', AIR 1929 All 950 (B). It is unnecessary for me to canvass these findings further because I am not sitting in Revision thereon. It is sufficient to point out that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate considered the story of cruelty and illtreatment as exaggerated and that if the allegations made at the trial were true those details would have found a place in the lawyer's notice sent prior to the petition for maintenance and that the only occasion of beating by the husband proved was that he slapped her and shut her mouth with his hand when she was overtalkative even after P. W. 2 read out the 6th verse in the 10th Chap. of St. Mark's Gospel, which counsels husband and wife to live amicably. The husband has thereupon filed this petition for directing the respondent to deliver custody of the minor child Priscilla under Section 25, Guardians and Wards Act.

(3.) Both sides adduced no evidence and the minor girl was produced in Court by the mother. On my questioning the girl, who appeared to be intelligent, she stated that she wanted to live with her mother only and not with her father.