PERUMAL NAICKER Vs. SITHA LAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred against the order of the leaned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in O. P. No. 31 of 1951.The case for the appellant husband Perumal Naicker established through the evidence of himself and his father P. W, 2 and another Sankarasubba Naicker and Exs. A -1 to A -4 is as follows:

(2.) THE respondent wife's case as spoken to by her and Pechimuthu Konar examined as R. W. 2 is as follows: She was ever ready and willing to go and live with her husband, that she is even now willing to live with her husband, that the husband never asked her to come and live with him, that he did not show any inclination to take back the wife though she sent word through people expressing her desire to go and live with him, that the husband is not willing to take her back because of some congenital defect in one of her legs, that the husband chose to take her as his wife on account of avarice for her properties, that this petition is filed with a view to get another girl married by the husband and there is no desertion on the part of the wife entitling the husband to get the marriage dissolved.

(3.) THE Indian case -law on the subject is thoroughly sparse [e.g., Wood v. Wood, 3 Cal. 485.Fowle v. Fowle, 4 Cal. 260.Glancy v. Glancy, 31 I.C. 264, Appibai v. Khimji : A.I.R. 1936 Bom. 138. Stree v. Stree : A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 541. Ram -swarup v,, A.I.R. 1950 E.P. 317. Rajalakshmi v. Jambulinga, 68 L.W. 152. Kuppanna v. Palani Ammal, 68 L.W. 467, In fact we have to derive assistance from the English case -law on desertion under the Matrimonial Causes Act and the matrimonial offence of ''abandonment" under the Indian Divorce Act of 1869.