High CourtsDivision Bench

Arunachala Asari vs Anandayammal

Madras High Court · Decided on 27 April 1933 · Citation: AIR 1933 Mad 688 : (1933) ILR (Mad) 913 : 145 Ind. Cas. 378 : (1933) 38 LW 392 : (1933) 65 MLJ 386

HON’BLE JUDGES
Burn, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (CrPC) — Section 488
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 154 words

Burn, J.—I cannot see that Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code has anything to do with ordinary conjugal rights; it deals with

maintenance"" only and I see no reason why maintenance should be supposed to include anything more than appropriate food, clothing and

lodging.

2.

On the facts of this case it is clear that the husband has offered to give his wife maintenance in his house but he wants her to live in a separate

room and not to associate with the other members of his family. She has refused this offer and in my opinion she has no sufficient grounds for

refusing. She cannot claim u/s 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be treated ""as a wife""; she can only claim to be maintained on a scale

appropriate to her station in life.

3.

The order for payment of separate maintenance is therefore unsupportable, and I set it aside.