G D RITCHSON Vs. WLDRITCHSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application comes before me in the following circumstances : On 26 June 1933, the wife who is the petitioner in the proceedings obtained a decree of judicial separation on account of her husband's adultery. At the time the decree was made, the learned Judge who heard the petition made an order clearly under the provisions of Section 37, Divorce Act, that the husband should pay his wife a monthly sum of Rs. 100 for her maintenance. The husband has apparently regularly carried out the order and made payments punctually. The husband's occupation is that of a permanent way inspector on the East Indian Railway. He is domiciled in India and in the early part; of this year he applied for leave out of India, and his application was granted. On 5 April 1937 the wife having come to know of the application for and sanction of the husband's leave, took out a notice of motion, asking that the alimony of Rs. 100 a month payable under the order of 26 June 1933 should be secured in such manner: as the Court thought proper. There was also a prayer that the husband: should be restrained from withdrawing his provident fund from the Railway. On 7 April 1937, the husband's bankers, Messrs. Thos. Cook & Sons, wrote a letter informing the wife that they had been instructed to pay her Rs. 100 a month during the husband's absence.

(2.) The husband sailed for England on 8 April 1937 having instructed his solicitors to oppose the application for security. The application was adjourned from time to time and finally it was disposed of by me on 5 July 1937 when I directed that the husband should furnish security for the alimony payable under the order of 26 June 1933, to the satisfaction of the Registrar by 15 November 1937. I have no clear recollection of the points urged on the husband's behalf of the application, but as far as I can remember no point of law-was taken, but it was pointed out that the husband had regularly paid alimony since the date of the order, and an affidavit was put in when it was stated on oath that he intended to continue to pay, and that his purpose was to return to India at the conclusion of his leave and resume his employment. He returned to India in the first week of November and on 9 November 1937 he took out a notice of motion. The notice is in the following form:

(3.) That the order dated 5 July 1937, so far as it relates to the furnishing of security by the applicant be set aside on his undertaking to pay alimony month by month regularly, and that the applicant be exempted from furnishing security.