1933 JTR(Mad) 185
1933 AIR(Mad) 688 ; 1933 56 ILR(Mad) 913 ; 145 IndCas 378 ; 1933 38 LW 392 ; 1933 65 MLJ 386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Burn, J.
Arunachala Asari
Versus
Anandayammal
Decided On : 27.04.1933
Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code pertains to maintenance only and does not entitle the claimant to be treated 'as a wife', but only to claim maintenance in line with her station in life.
Section 488 - Maintenance - The court clarified that Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code pertains to maintenance only, encompassing appropriate food, clothing, and lodging, and not ordinary conjugal rights. The court emphasized that the provision does not entitle the claimant to be treated 'as a wife' but only to claim maintenance in line with her station in life.
Fact of the Case:
The husband offered maintenance to his wife in his house but wanted her to live in a separate room and not associate with other family members. The wife refused this offer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife had no sufficient grounds for refusing the husband's offer of maintenance and that she cannot claim to be treated 'as a wife' under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: The issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the entitlement of the wife to maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to maintenance only and does not entitle the claimant to be treated 'as a wife', but only to claim maintenance in line with her station in life.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order for payment of separate maintenance, deeming it unsupportable.
Section 488 - Maintenance - The court clarified that Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code pertains to maintenance only, encompassing appropriate food, clothing, and lodging, and not ordinary conjugal rights. The court emphasized that the provision does not entitle the claimant to be treated 'as a wife' but only to claim maintenance in line with her station in life.
Fact of the Case:
The husband offered maintenance to his wife in his house but wanted her to live in a separate room and not associate with other family members. The wife refused this offer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife had no sufficient grounds for refusing the husband's offer of maintenance and that she cannot claim to be treated 'as a wife' under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: The issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the entitlement of the wife to maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to maintenance only and does not entitle the claimant to be treated 'as a wife', but only to claim maintenance in line with her station in life.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order for payment of separate maintenance, deeming it unsupportable.
ORDER
Burn, J.
1. 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 under Section 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.