MOHAMED HANEEFA Vs. MARIAM BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition Is filed by the husband against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Gudalur, In M. C. 143 of 1966, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40 per month to his first wife the respondent herein.

(2.) THE facts of the case are briefly these: The respondent, Mariam Bi, is the first wife of the petitioner, Mohamed Haneefa, having got married to the petitioner on 22nd May 1962. They were living as man and wife amicably for some time. Later, the petitioner married another woman. Since then, the petitioner neclected and refused to maintain the respondent. The respondent filed a petition under Section 488, Criminal P. C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Gudalur, claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs. 50. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate granted maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 40 per month mainly on the ground that under Section 488 (3), Cr. P. C. it would be just for the respondent to refuse to live with the petitioner as he had contracted marriage with another woman and that, therefore, she would be entitled to separate maintenance.

(3.) THE learned advocate for the revision petitioner raised two points, namely (1)that unless it is shown by the wife, notwithstanding the proviso to Section 488 (3), criminal P. C. , that he refused or neglected to maintain her she will not be entitled to maintenance; and (2) that Section 488 (3), Criminal P. C. second proviso, namely, if a husband has contracted marriage with another wife, or keeps a mistress it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him, would not apply to the personal law of Muslims, under which a husband can lawfully marry more than one wife and that this proviso cannot affect or supersede the personal law.