Skip to content


Muniammal Vs. Venkataramanachari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Mad768; (1943)2MLJ318
AppellantMuniammal
RespondentVenkataramanachari
Cases ReferredParvathi v. Ramaswami Rowth
Excerpt:
- .....it is stated on the authority of the ruling in parvathi v. ramaswami rowth (1835) 2 w l o & c p 630 that since the respondent had not neglected to maintain the child, he was not bound to pay maintenance to the child. but there the child was 13 years old and the girl did not want to return to her father and insisted on staying with her mother. here it does not appear that the child had any such option. it has not been stated by the respondent that at any time when the child was living away from him he wanted the child to go to him.' it is pointed out in vaidhilinga ayyan, in the same volume of weir at p. 630, that where the woman has the custody of the son and has to maintain him she will be entitled to an allowance on his account. applying the principles of this ruling, the wife.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. This is a petition by the wife of the respondent for maintenance for herself and her child. That the petitioner is the wife of the respondent, and that the child is his are not disputed. As soon as the petition came on for hearing the respondent stated that he would await the result of a caste panchayat as regards the chastity of the petitioner and then state what he had to state. He subsequently pleaded that she was leading an unchaste life. Evidence was let in and the Joint Magistrate of Hosur found that she was leading an unchaste life and dismissed the petition.

2. On facts I do not think the learned Magistrate was wrong. A number of witnesses spoke to the fact that the petitioner was living with another man in a house built by him as husband and wife There was also an enquiry by the caste panchayat and she was ex-communicated.

3. I agree with the finding of the Magistrate that the petitioner was living an adulterous life and was therefore not entitled to maintenance.

4. But with regard to the child, it is admittedly the child of the respondent and the claim is made only from the date of the petition. It is stated on the authority of the ruling in Parvathi v. Ramaswami Rowth (1835) 2 W L O & C P 630 that since the respondent had not neglected to maintain the child, he was not bound to pay maintenance to the child. But there the child was 13 years old and the girl did not want to return to her father and insisted on staying with her mother. Here it does not appear that the child had any such option. It has not been stated by the respondent that at any time when the child was living away from him he wanted the child to go to him.' It is pointed out in Vaidhilinga Ayyan, in the same volume of Weir at p. 630, that where the woman has the custody of the son and has to maintain him she will be entitled to an allowance on his account. Applying the principles of this ruling, the wife will be entitled to the costs of maintaining the child till in due process of law the respondent is able to obtain custody of the child. The order of the lower Court is modified by directing the respondent to pay the petitioner maintenance at Rs. 4 per mensem for meeting the costs of maintaining her daughter from the date of the petition.


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