KAMALA BAI Vs. T R RATHNAVELU MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, a Hindu wife, whose suit for maintenance was decreed by the trial court and dismissed by the appellate Court in appeal is the appellant in the second appeal.

(2.) THIS is an unfortunate case where the marriage struck the shoals even immediately after the marriage. The parties were married on 16-61948, and it appears that the plaintiff lived with her husband, the defendant, for about 20 days or so after the marriage and left her husband's house to her mother's house on grounds of ill-treatment. A male child was prematurely born to her on 2-2-1949 and died in a few days. The canker of suspicion that he may not be the father of the child had somehow wormed its way into the mind of the husband and estranged feelings between the spouses led to two suits-- (1) O. S. No. 597 of 1949 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for maintenance by the wife, and (2) C. S. No. 156 of 1949 in the Original side of this Court by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) THE two suits were tried together on the Original side of this Court and on 6-21952, panchapakesa Aiyar, J. passed a common decree in both the suits. It is observed in the judgment that "a Court is always anxious to keep a marriage intact, if possible, especially a marriage contracted so recently as this and when it can easily pass decrees in both the suits just and equitable and satisfactory to all". After noticing that a husband's false imputation of unchastity to his wife would-be a sufficient ground to non-suit him if he had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, and that that would be a sufficient ground also for awarding separate maintenance to the wife, that in the case of a sensitive woman, an imputation of unchastity may end in nervous break down or the woman may commit suicide, and in other cases the jealous husband may commit murder and in certain circumstances, the conduct of the husband may not only cause mental pain but also danger or apprehended danger to life, limb or health of the wife, which is the essence of legal cruelty, Panchapakesa Aiyar, J. held that fortunately, in the case in question, there was no need to refuse restitution of conjugal rights on terms as the husband has asserted that he merely 'entertained' the strongest suspicions regarding the wife's unchastity and delivering a bastard child but had 'not communicated' these ideas to his wife or others. A decree for restitution of conjugal rights was therefore passed in the cases, dismissing the suit for maintenance for the time being, on condition of the husband putting his wife in a separate portion of his house free from the domination and authority of his mother, the wife being allowed to cook 'for herself and himself' and treating her with love and consideration due to the wife. The wife was on her part enjoined to behave towards her husband with love and affection due to a husband. (The underlining (here into) is mine ). a ). But this attempt to prop up the marriage home has failed. The subsequent proceedings would show that the attempt of the parties to comply with the decree was in letter only and not in spirit. This Court had directed the husband to bear his own costs in both the suits and pay the defendant's costs in the suits and also pay the court-fee due to the Government on the wife's plaint in the maintenance suit. Without accepting the wife's offer to return gracefully, the husband went up in appeals against the decree as to costs in the two suits and it was with the litigation pending between the parties that one finds exchange of lawyer's notice for compliance with the decree regarding restitution. Under Ex. B. 6 dated 9-31952, the plaintiff went to the husband's house to join him. The subsequent development show that the parties had failed to patch up the differences that had arisen earlier. It is needless to make much of the fact that the husband refused permission to the plaintiff's mother to visit the plaintiff in his house or permit the mother's sister who had accompanied her on 31-3-1952 to stay on and that he was rude to her and drove her out. But the fact remains and it is admitted that the plaintiff was given accommodation in a place which had no doors, and that he never slept with her during the days she stayed with him on this visit till she left him on 19-4-1952, the husband taking from her the letter Ex. B. 1, where it is stated that she did not like to live with her husband and was going out of her own free-will. The learned trial Judge observes that from the admissions of the husband it was clear that he had not fulfilled marital duties to his wife between 31-3-1952 and 194-1952, the day on which she left him. The trial Judge would also observe that he has not technically fulfilled the terms by which he was allowed to have restitution of conjugal rights and that he was cold and unreceptive and evidently, the above made the position of the plaintiff in his house intolerable and unbearable. He found that if she had left him on 19-4-1952, he was responsible for her departure, that thereafter, he had not cared to go to his wife and call her once again to come and live with him and that the desertion was on his part. Holding that the husband was not anxious to lead a married life with her and felt that his duty as a husband ended in merely providing shelter without privacy and food to her, the trial Court observed it was obvious that he had not erased out of his mind his suspicion regarding her unchastity. The trial Court held that he was guilty of desertion towards the plaintiff and I the plaintiff left the defendant, the same must have been due to bad treatment accorded to her. Taking into consideration that he was possessed of house property in the city from which he is getting rents and besides he was a violinist in the All India Radio, the maintenance was fixed at Rs. 45 a month and a decree for maintenance was passed accordingly.