(1.) This suit was brought by a wife to recover arrears of maintenance from a leprous husband. Defendant appeals.
(2.) Two of the grounds raised in the arguments, namely (1) that the defendant's leprosy was not in a virulent form, and (2) that the plaintiff having originally deserted her husband without any justifying cause cannot make his disease a pretext for demanding maintenance whilst continuing to live apart from him, may be disposed of briefly by observing (1) that it has been found by the Subordinate Judge upon the defendant's admission that the disease has now assumed a virulent form, and that finding being on a question of fact is final; (2) that plaintiff having begun to live separately in 1908 and the defendant having, when examined in 1919, admitted that his leprosy commenced 10 years ago, the existence of the husband's disease and the wife's going away to live separately are sufficiently connected in point of time to justify the inference that the separation was occasioned by the disease, although there was no medical - certificate as to existence of leprosy earlier than December 1913.
(3.) On the substantial point of law, which is whether a wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband when she declines to live with him on account of his being a leper, our attention has not been called to any reported cases in which the point has been directly decided. In Bai Premkuvar V/s. Bhika Kallianji (1868) 5 Bom. H.C.R. (App.) 209 it was held that the fact that a Hindu husband was suffering from a loathsome disease such as leprosy was a good defence to his suit for the restitution of conjugal rights. It seems to follow that if a leprous husband cannot enforce cohabitation upon an unwilling wife he equally cannot make his disease a defence to her suit for maintenance so long as he has means to maintain her.