Juliet Vasantha vs Antony Marimuthu

David Annoussamy, J.—This is a revision petition in a matter of maintenance filed by the wife.

She filed C.C. 224 of 1980 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli, for maintenance from her husband on the ground that she has

been taken to her parents house by her husband and that thereafter he started neglecting her. The husband resisted her claim by stating that the

wife has deserted the conjugal house on her own initiative and that he is prepared to take her back and maintain in the conjugal house. The wife

then agreed to come and live with her husband provided that they live separately from the husband''s parents. The husband did not agree to such a

course on the plea that his income was not sufficient and that he was depending on his parents for resources.

The trial Magistrate held that the wife was entitled to maintenance, since the husband was not prepared to maintain her in a house free from

vexatious by her in-laws. As far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, the wife deposed that her husband''s monthly income was Rs. 517

whereas the husband, who contended that his salary was only Rs. 163-50 p.m. did not adduce any evidence in respect thereof. It was within his

knowledge and reach. Therefore, the trial Magistrate accepted that the amount as spoken to by the wife should be the proper one and ordered the

husband to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 75.

On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge held that the wife has no right to ask for a residence separate from that of the parents-in-law and that

upon her refusal to come and live with the husband along with his parents, she was not entitled to any maintenance, passed by the trial Magistrate.

It is against this order that the present revision is filed.

The case of the revision petitioner is that the stand taken by the appellate Court was wrong and that a wife cannot be refused maintenance for

the mere reason that she refused to live in a place where it was impossible for her to lead a normal and peaceful life. In support of his above

contention, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner produced a decision of this Court in M. Ponnambalam Vs. Saraswathi, , In that decision it

was observed as follows -

It is now well settled law in England, America and India, that a wife is entitled to insist that she should not be exposed to the unpleasantness of the

relatives of her husband and that suitable provisions should be made for her to live with her husband in privacy.... at times the husband may have to

choose between his parents, mother or his wife. He must come to his own conclusion in his own mind and must not insist upon the incompatible

parties like his own wife and mother living together and making life a hell for them....it cannot be said that the wife had disentitled herself to

separate maintenance by saying that she would live only with the husband and not with the step mother added to the bargain.... But times have

changed. Hardships which wives were prepared to endure in the past they are not prepared to endure now and the Court cannot impose upon

them ante-diluvian requirements of domestic, Hindu house holds at the present times.

This decision was passed in the year 1957 and from then the evolution has been more and more towards strengthening right of the wife seeking

from her husband a residence of their own separate from that of the in-laws.

I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the views expressed in the above judgment and hold that the wife is entitled to insist for a conjugal

life in a house where her in-laws do not find a place and for such insistence she cannot be denied the right of maintenance.

Before parting with the case, it may be made clear that an order passed u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only a temporary

arrangement and that it is open to the parties to approach the matrimonial court in order to settle permanently their respective rights. That Court

would have full jurisdiction to modify this order of maintenance after hearing fully the pleas of the parties and recording their evidence relevant

thereto.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the Sessions court passed in Cr. R.C. 41 of 1981, on 31-8-1981, is set aside and the

order of the trial Magistrate in C .C. 224 of 1980, dated 10-4-1981 is restored.