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
9 paragraphs · 213 wordsKing, J.—This Revision Petition is not opposed. The wife''s claim to maintenance is not a very strong one. She has waited three years to
claim it. The petitioner now offers to take her back. She refuses to go unless he will give up his mistress. Petitioner''s case is that Sundari is not his
mistress, but the learned Magistrate believes that she is and that he will not desert her. The main point however seems to be that petitioner has
never so far insulted his wife as to compel her to live in the same house as his mistress nor does it seem likely that petitioner will now adopt this
course of conduct. If he does respondent may justifiably leave him and again claim maintenance. But I am not in agreement with the learned
Magistrate that the respondent can exact a promise of sexual fidelity before she returns to live with the petitioner. In Arunachala Asari Vs.
Anandayammal, my learned brother Burn, J., has held that Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, has nothing to do with conjugal rights; and
although that case deals with Hindus there is no reason why its principles should not be extended to the case of Indian Christians. I accordingly
allow the petition and quash the order for maintenance.