BHIKUBAI YESHWANTRAO MEHER Vs. HARIBA SAWALARAM MEHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His lordship after discussing evidence held that it was not proved that Bhikubai had married Shankar; but held that Bhikubai had been intimate with Shankar. The judgment then proceeded:] The next question of fact to be determined is whether the finding that she has reverted to a moral life is correct. Its correctness has been challenged by Mr. Setalvad. It appears from the evidence that Shankar married one Jijibai at Dehu in December 1918. The case for the plaintiff is that ever since that marriage there is nothing to show that Shankar has been living on terms of improper intimacy with Bhikubai. It appears from the various receipts of money-orders sent by the defendant to Bhikubai at Dehu and Junnar that Shankar signed for Bhikubai, and that his association with her has not ceased. There are other letters in the case, which it is not necessary to refer to, that the apparent association of Shankar with Bhikubai, who has been living apparently since 1918 at Junnar and Dehu, has continued. When once we find that the relations between Shankar and Bhikubai had reached the stage of improper familiarity, and when we find that the apparent association of Shankar with Bhikubai has not ceased, it is not easy to draw the inference that after his marriage with Jijibai, the improper connection with Bhikubai has ceased. At the same time we have the evidence of Jijibai which goes to show that such improper relations did not exist-at any rate not to her knowledge. While I am prepared to give due weight to the evidence of Jijibai, speaking for myself I do not find it easy to hold it proved that the improper relations between Bhikubai and Shankar have ceased. The learned trial Judge was prepared to draw that inference in favour of Bhikubai, and my learned brother is also prepared to draw that inference in her favour on the evidence of Jijibai.

(2.) As I consider that that inference is a reasonably possible inference under the circumstances, in spite of the difficulty which I feel in accepting it, I am not prepared to differ from the conclusion that for some time prior to the date of the suit Bhikubai had given up her life of incontinence.

(3.) On these facts, the question arises whether Bhikubai has forfeited her claim to maintenance altogether, or whether she is entitled to bare maintenance, as the learned trial Judge has held. It is argued on her behalf that in view of the observations of Chandavarkar J. in Parami V/s. Mahadevi,(1909) I. L. R. 34 Bom. 278 she is entitled to full maintenance as a widow living a chaste life would gets as she has given up the life of incontinence.