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
13 paragraphs · 315 wordsI think the order of the Magistrate is right. The Counter-petitioner, agreed to maintain the petitioner, his wife with the consideration due to her
position as wife and give her food and clothing but stated that he had not made up his mind whether he would cohabit with her. It is argued that this
is not a sufficient offer u/s 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. All that proviso to Sub-clause 3 enacts, is that, if a husband offers to maintain his
wife on condition of her living with him and she refuses to do so the Magistrate may consider any ground of refusal stated by her and pass orders.
I do not think that there is anything in the Code which compels the criminal court to award separate maintenance to a wife whom the husband
agrees to protect and maintain in a manner suitable to her position in life simply because he refuses to cohabit with her. Reference has been made
to Marakkal v. Kandappa ILR (1883) Mad. 371, where it was held that an offer by a Hindu having two wives to maintain his first wife by allowing
her to live in his house and to supply her with grain to be cooked and eaten separately coupled with a refusal to live with her as husband and wife
was insufficient in a complaint u/s 536 of Criminal Procedure Code of 1872. The offer in that case was to treat the wife practically as an outcaste.
In Queen Empress v. Mannatha Achari 4 M.L.J. 83 it was held that all that is necessary is that the offer must be an offer to maintain the wife with
the consideration due to her position as wife.
The question was considered by Jardine and Parsons JJ. In re Gulabdas Bhaidas I.L.R.(1891) 16 Bom. 269 with which Judgment I entirely
agree. I dismiss the petition.