Skip to content


Swarajyawati Vs. L.B. Munnalal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1972CriLJ291
AppellantSwarajyawati
RespondentL.B. Munnalal and anr.
Excerpt:
.....for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to confer any right on tenant to plead that all defaults committed by him prior to application for eviction can never be considered wilful, if he were to deposit all arrears of rent due within fifteen days under rule 5(6) read with sub-section (1) of section 11. the object and effect of section 11 and sub-rules (1) to (5) to rule 5, the former being for protection of landlord during pendency of eviction proceedings and the later being for protection of tenant to avoid any liability for eviction on ground of wilful default. consequently, while taking recourse to section 8 by tenant is optional, once that.....ordermadhava reddi, j.1. the wife was awarded maintenance under section 488 cr.p.c. subsequently the proceedings under the hindu marriage act for restitution of conjugal rights were initiated by the husband in which the wife was awarded interim maintenance under section 24 of the act. having regard to the said order directing the payment of interim maintenance, the respondent filed a petition for cancellation of the maintenance order made under section 488 (1) cr. p. c. the learned magistrate has allowed that petition. on a revision petition filed by the wife before the chief city magistrate, hyderabad he has made a reference to this court to set aside the order of cancellation made by the magistrate.2. when it is not disputed that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Madhava Reddi, J.

1. The wife was awarded maintenance under Section 488 Cr.P.C. Subsequently the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights were initiated by the husband in which the wife was awarded interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. Having regard to the said order directing the payment of interim maintenance, the respondent filed a petition for cancellation of the maintenance order made under Section 488 (1) Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate has allowed that petition. On a revision petition filed by the wife before the Chief City Magistrate, Hyderabad he has made a reference to this Court to set aside the order of cancellation made by the Magistrate.

2. When it is not disputed that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed under the Hindu Marriage Act is still pending and the maintenance that has been awarded to the wife is only interim maintenance under Section 24, it cannot be postulated that the husband would necessarily get a decree for restitution of conjugal rights nor can it be said that the wife would be awarded maintenance permanently. In fact in those proceedings no maintenance as such would be awarded for a period subsequent to the disposal of the petition, the maintenance ordered under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act being only interim maintenance. An order under Section 488 (1) Cr. P. C. cannot be cancelled merely because interim maintenance has been awarded. Under Sub-section (5) of Section 488 only on proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband or that they are living separately by mutual consent the Magistrate may cancel the order. Further under Section 489 (2) Cr. P. C, only where it appears to the Magistrate that in consequence of any decision of a competent civil Court, any order made under Section 488 should be cancelled or varied, he may cancel the order or, as the case may be vary the same accordingly. But a direction to pay interim maintenance pending disposal of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband is not a circumstance warranting cancellation of the order. That must necessarily await the final disposal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The reference is therefore, accepted. The revision petition is allowed and the order directing payment of maintenance to the wife originally passed is restored and the subsequent order cancelling the maintenance awarded is set aside.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //