SINGARAVELU ALIAS SINGARAM CHETTIAR Vs. PATTAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent is the appellant's wife. In C.S. No. 77 of 1944 on the Original Side of this Court, she obtained a decree against the appellant which directed him to pay her a sum of Rs. 50 per month as maintenance on or before the 10th of each month. She filed E.P. No. 55 of 1948, to recover the arrears of maintenance due under the decree from January 1946 to February 1948. The appellant raised an objection that subsequent to the passing of the decree, the respondent was leading an unchaste life and she was therefore not entitled to enforce the decree as she had forfeited her rights thereunder by her unchastity. The First Assistant Registrar before whom the application first came up for hearing overruled this objection of the appellant on the ground that the decree conferred on the respondent an unconditional and absolute right for maintenance. There was an appeal and the learned Judge sitting in Chambers confirmed the order of the First Assistant Registrar. He held that the executing Court could not go behind the decree and the decree, as it stood, was unambiguous and did not contain any condition to the effect that the respondent would lose her right to execute the decree if she became unchaste subsequent thereto. The learned Judge followed the ruling of the Bombay High Court in Maharana Shri Ranmalsangji v. Bai Shri Kundankuwar, I.L.R. (1902) Bom. 707 and dismissed the appeal. Against the decision of the learned Judge, the husband has filed this appeal.

(2.) IN our opinion, the principle underlying the decision in Maharana Shri Ranmalsangji v. Bai Shri Kundan Kuwar, I.L.R. (1902) Bom. 707 directly applies to this case. There the respondent had obtained a decree for maintenance against her husband, the appellant, on 14th June, 1898. On 22nd February, 1901, she applied for execution of the decree. The appellant objected and contended that she had lost her right to maintenance inasmuch as she had left his house without any cause and without his consent, sometime in December, 1900. For the husband it was argued that by her conduct the wife had forfeited her right to maintenance and therefore the decree became inexecutable. The learned Judges in overruling this objection of the husband observed thus:

(3.) THE ruling of a Division Bench in Venkayya v. : AIR1942Mad1 was cited to us and the following passage in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice was relied on by the Counsel for the appellant: