Skip to content


Daulata ShuklaIn Vs. Debi Saran Shukul and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1917)ILR39All234
AppellantDaulata Shuklain
RespondentDebi Saran Shukul and anr.
Excerpt:
hindu law - maintenance--wife's right to maintenance forfeited by unchastity. - .....by us to the court below that at the time of the institution of the suit she was living an unchaste life. under these circumstances the question we have to consider is whether the plaintiff is entitled to any maintenance. the case of subhayya v. bhavani (1907) 24 indian cases 390 was cited at the hearing. in that case it was held that a wife is not entitled to maintenance from her husband if at the time of the suit she is living in adultery and persists in her vicious course of life. this view seems to us to be in consonance with the hindu law. as in the present case it has been found that the plaintiff was leading an unchaste life at the time of the institution of the suit and persisted in her vicious course of life, she is not entitled to any maintenance it was urged that she.....
Judgment:

Pramada Charan Banerji and Walsh, JJ.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against her husband to recover maintenance. The defence to the claim was that the plaintiff was unchaste and was not therefore entitled to any maintenance from her husband. It has been found that the plaintiff gave birth to an illegitimate child, and it has also been found upon an issue referred by us to the court below that at the time of the institution of the suit she was living an unchaste life. Under these circumstances the question we have to consider is whether the plaintiff is entitled to any maintenance. The case of Subhayya v. Bhavani (1907) 24 Indian Cases 390 was cited at the hearing. In that case it was held that a wife is not entitled to maintenance from her husband if at the time of the suit she is living in adultery and persists in her vicious course of life. This view seems to us to be in consonance with the Hindu Law. As in the present case it has been found that the plaintiff was leading an unchaste life at the time of the institution of the suit and persisted in her vicious course of life, she is not entitled to any maintenance It was urged that she was entitled to bare maintenance in any case; but no authority has been brought forward before us in support of this contention. No doubt in the case to which we have referred above the learned Judges further held that a wife, who had given birth to an illegitimate child but at the time of the suit was not living in adultery, was entitled to maintenance. But it is not necessary for Us to consider whether we would agree with that view. In the present case, it having been found that at the time of the institution of the suit the plaintiff was carrying on a career of immorality, it is unnecessary to determine whether she would have been entitled to maintenance had she led a chaste life after a single act of immorality. The result is that the appeal is allowed, the decree of the court below is set aside and that of the court of first instance is restored with costs in all courts.


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