Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    New Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation

    Uploaded by

    Pratyush mishra
    do give a read

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    New Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation

    Uploaded by

    Pratyush mishra
    32 views6 pages
    do give a read

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    do give a read

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    32 views6 pages

    New Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation

    Uploaded by

    Pratyush mishra
    do give a read

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 6

    Appellants: K.

    Veeriah

    Vs.

    Respondent: Muthulakshmi

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

    Cri. R.C. No. 16 of 1997

    Decided On: 25.09.1998


    FACTS
    Muthulakshmi, the first respondent herein/wife, filed an application
    claiming for maintenance from her husband, the petitioner herein, for
    herself and for her minor childrenrespondents 2 to 4. The lower Court
    passed an award of maintenance only in favour of the respondent-4
    minor Sudha directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per
    month and disallowed the claim of maintenance for the first
    respondent, the wife, holding that she was not entitled to
    maintenance as she was living in adultery and disallowed the claim
    for the respondents 2 and 3, the minor children, on the ground that
    those children are living with the petitioner herein.
    CONT
    However, the first respondent challenging the order of disallowing her
    claim for maintenance and seeking for the enhancement of the
    maintenance amount to the fourth respondent, minor daughter, filed
    the revision before the learned Sessions Court at Madurai. On hearing
    the parties, the learned Sessions Judge held that the wife, the first
    respondent herein, was entitled to maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month
    and enhanced the maintenance granted in favour of the fourth
    respondent from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per month from the date of the
    application filed before the lower Court in M.C. No. 1/95. This order
    is under challenge by the husband, the petitioner herein.
    ISSUE
    WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT WAS BASED WITHOUT ANY
    EVIDENCE OR NOT?
    OBSEVATION
    In Section 488(4) the words living in adultery; have been almost uniformly
    interpreted as indicating an adulterous course of life as distinguished from a
    single lapse from virtue. It has been suggested that a single act of adultery should
    be enough to disentitle wife to maintenance. We are unable to accept the
    suggestion. Hardships are bound to arise if the wife is totally debarred from the
    remedy under this section because of a single lapse from virtue. Further, to
    deprive her of maintenance for an occasional lapse may force her to live sinful life
    and give her no chance to redeem herself.

    In view of the above observation in Law Commission Report, the husband shall
    establish by unimpeachable and cogent evidence that his wife at or about the
    time of the filing of the maintenance petition has been leading continued
    adulterous life. Admittedly, those materials are not available in this case.
    JUDGEMENT
    In these circumstances, I am of the view that the first
    respondent/wife is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month as
    held by the learned Sessions Judge. In fact, there is no dispute with
    regard to the fact that the 2nd and 3rd respondents are now living
    with the petitioner/husband. So the 4th respondent, who is now
    living with the first respondent/wife, I entitled to a maintenance of
    Rs. 250/- per month, as held in the impugned order.
    In view of the above legal position, I concur with the view taken by
    the learned Sessions Judge and dismiss the revision, as devoid of
    merits.

    You might also like