Skip to content


Kuppammal Minor by His Next Friend, Thayasundarachari Vs. Kuppanachari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in24Ind.Cas.380; (1914)26MLJ363
AppellantKuppammal Minor by His Next Friend, Thayasundarachari
RespondentKuppanachari
Excerpt:
- .....it appears that the spouses have never lived together. i think it is clear that ill-health of a wife is no ground for the refusal of the husband to give her his protection and afford her the shelter of his house, and that the defendant is bound to do so notwithstanding that the wife may not be able to afford him all the rights of a husband.2. the fact that the parents of the girl at one time refused to give him the custody of the child is no reason why he should now refuse to perform his duty.3. i think that the written statement discloses no defence and there will be a decree that the defendant do receive the plaintiff into his house as his wife and pay the costs of this suit. there will be no order as to jewels ; as the guardian of his wife defendant will be entitled to have the.....
Judgment:

Bakewell, J.

1. This is a suit by a wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The plaintiff was 12 years of age at the date of the presentation of the plaint on 4-8-13 and sues by her father as next friend. It is alleged by the defendant that the parents of the girl in April last resisted his attempt to obtain possession of his wife on the ground that her health did not permit of their cohabitation, and he now maintains that she has not proved that her health has been re-established or that she is able to cohabit with him. It appears that the spouses have never lived together. I think it is clear that ill-health of a wife is no ground for the refusal of the husband to give her his protection and afford her the shelter of his house, and that the defendant is bound to do so notwithstanding that the wife may not be able to afford him all the rights of a husband.

2. The fact that the parents of the girl at one time refused to give him the custody of the child is no reason why he should now refuse to perform his duty.

3. I think that the written statement discloses no defence and there will be a decree that the defendant do receive the plaintiff into his house as his wife and pay the costs of this suit. There will be no order as to jewels ; as the guardian of his wife defendant will be entitled to have the custody of them.


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