Skip to content


Babu Ram Vs. Musammat Kokla - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1924)ILR46All210
AppellantBabu Ram
RespondentMusammat Kokla
Excerpt:
suit for restitution of conjugal rights - defence--reasonable apprehension of bodily injury--decree refused. - - it is perfectly clear why he has brought this suit......he suspected her chastity. when the woman endeavoured to obtain the money that was due to her, the husband refused to pay it and she had to attach his property and to arrest him and place him in custody to execute the order. at the end of this, he has applied for restitution of conjugal rights against her and has advanced the somewhat amazing suggestion that although he has suspected her chastity for twenty years, now that she has claimed an order of maintenance against him, his suspicion has been allayed. it is perfectly clear why he has brought this suit. if he succeeds, he will be able to go to the criminal court and say that his wife is refusing to live with him without sufficient reason and the order of maintenance will then be cancelled. but what will become of the woman? she will.....
Judgment:

Stuart and Mukerji, JJ.

1. This is an appeal by a husband whose suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed by the lower appellate court. The learned District Judge not having decided certain points, we propose to decide them ourselves under the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These are the facts as we find them. The appellant is a Brahman. Many years ago he turned his wife out of doors stating that he suspected her chastity. The woman went to live with her uncle, who supported her. She then applied to the Criminal Court for a maintenance order under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and she obtained an order awarding her sufficient maintenance. It is to he noted that under the law she could not have received maintenance if without sufficient reason she refused to live with her husband or if they were living separately by mutual consent. The plaintiff has admitted that when the maintenance proceedings were in progress before the Magistrate, he even then refused to take his wife back, stating that at the time he suspected her chastity. When the woman endeavoured to obtain the money that was due to her, the husband refused to pay it and she had to attach his property and to arrest him and place him in custody to execute the order. At the end of this, he has applied for restitution of conjugal rights against her and has advanced the somewhat amazing suggestion that although he has suspected her chastity for twenty years, now that she has claimed an order of maintenance against him, his suspicion has been allayed. It is perfectly clear why he has brought this suit. If he succeeds, he will be able to go to the Criminal Court and say that his wife is refusing to live with him without sufficient reason and the order of maintenance will then be cancelled. But what will become of the woman? She will be deprived of maintenance and will then be compelled to return and live with her husband sooner or later. In. the circumstances we have no hesitation in saying that she will have a reasonable apprehension of bodily injury if she returns to her husband. We consider that the suit was rightly dismissed and dismiss this appeal. The appellant will pay his own costs. The other side being unrepresented, will pay her own costs.


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