LAWS(MAD)-1949-1-25

PUNUKOLLU PARANDHAMAYYA Vs. PUNUKOLLU NAVARATHNA SIKHAMANI

Decided On January 20, 1949
PUNUKOLLU PARANDHAMAYYA Appellant
V/S
PUNUKOLLU NAVARATHNA SIKHAMANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam, giving a decree in the terms of the award. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. They were married in the year 1930, and in 1944 disputes arose between them, and the wife was living apart from the husband from May 1944. She filed O.S. No. 64 of 1944 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam for recovery of Rs. 30,182 -15 -7 and also for return of movables. The relief was based upon a claim which is stated in paragraph 10.of the plaint as follows:

(2.) THE learned advocate for the appellant contended that the award was illegal within the meaning of Section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act. His argument was that the custom found by the arbitrators was against public policy inasmuch as it would encourage a wife to get away from her husband with the hope of getting money that was presented at the time of the marriage. We do not agree with this contention. This custom must have had its origin in an attempt made by the Kamma community to stabilise the condition of a woman, who, for one reason or other, had to live apart from her husband. It was conceived in the best interests of women, a section of the public, who would otherwise be put to grave hardships and untold miseries. Not only this custom is not against public policy but is really in the interests of an important section of the public. The custom is not that an unchaste woman, who has been discarded by her husband because of her uneasily, should be given money presented at the time of the marriage. If so, there may be some force in the argument of the learned advocate for the appellant. The custom is really to safeguard the interests of a woman who, for one reason or other, has to live apart from her husband. In our view there is no illegality in the award of the arbitrators and the lower Court was right in passing a decree in terms of the award. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.