High CourtsDivision Bench(1894) 01 MAD CK 0002

Nagamma vs Virabhadra

Madras High Court · Decided on 9 January 1894 · Citation: (1894) ILR (Mad) 392

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J · Shephard, J

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 84 words
1.

We must follow the decision in Valu v. Ganga ILR 7 Bom. 34 and Vishnu Shambhog v. Manjamma ILR 9 Bom. 108 and hold that unchastity of

a widow deprives her wholly of her right to maintenance. No text has been cited in favour of the theory that a bare maintenance can be allowed.

The fact that there has been an agreement in our opinion makes no difference. It merely fixes the amount and the security. We must dismiss the

appeal with costs.