David Annoussamy, J.
1. This is a revision petition in a matter of maintenance filed by the wife.
2. She filed C.C. 224 of 1980 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli, for maintenance from her husband on the ground that she has been taken to her parents house by her husband and that thereafter he started neglecting her. The husband resisted her claim by stating that the wife has deserted the conjugal house on her own initiative and that he is prepared to take her back and maintain in the conjugal house. The wife then agreed to come and live with her husband provided that they live separately from the husband's parents. The husband did not agree to such a course on the plea that his income was not sufficient and that he was depending on his parents for resources.
3. The trial Magistrate held that the wife was entitled to maintenance, since the husband was not prepared to maintain her in a house free from vexatious by her in-laws. As far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, the wife deposed that her husband's monthly income was Rs. 517 whereas the husband, who contended that his salary was only Rs. 163-50 p.m. did not adduce any evidence in respect thereof. It was within his knowledge and reach. Therefore, the trial Magistrate accepted that the amount as spoken to by the wife should be the proper one and ordered the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 75.
4. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge held that the wife has no right to ask for a residence separate from that of the parents-in-law and that upon her refusal to come and live with the husband along with his parents, she was not entitled to any maintenance, passed by the trial Magistrate. It is against this order that the present revision is filed.
5. The case of the revision petitioner is that the stand taken by the appellate Court was wrong and that a wife cannot be refused maintenance for the mere reason that she refused to live in a place where it was impossible for her to lead a normal and peaceful life. In support of his above contention, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner produced a decision of this Court in M. Ponnambalam v. Saraswathi : AIR1957Mad693 , In that decision it was observed as follows -
It is now well settled law in England, America and India, that a wife is entitled to insist that she should not be exposed to the unpleasantness of the relatives of her husband and that suitable provisions should be made for her to live with her husband in privacy.... at times the husband may have to choose between his parents, mother or his wife. He must come to his own conclusion in his own mind and must not insist upon the incompatible parties like his own wife and mother living together and making life a hell for them....it cannot be said that the wife had disentitled herself to separate maintenance by saying that she would live only with the husband and not with the step mother added to the bargain.... But times have changed. Hardships which wives were prepared to endure in the past they are not prepared to endure now and the Court cannot impose upon them ante-diluvian requirements of domestic, Hindu house holds at the present times.
This decision was passed in the year 1957 and from then the evolution has been more and more towards strengthening right of the wife seeking from her husband a residence of their own separate from that of the in-laws.
6. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the views expressed in the above judgment and hold that the wife is entitled to insist for a conjugal life in a house where her in-laws do not find a place and for such insistence she cannot be denied the right of maintenance.
7. Before parting with the case, it may be made clear that an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only a temporary arrangement and that it is open to the parties to approach the matrimonial court in order to settle permanently their respective rights. That Court would have full jurisdiction to modify this order of maintenance after hearing fully the pleas of the parties and recording their evidence relevant thereto.
8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the Sessions court passed in Cr. R.C. 41 of 1981, on 31-8-1981, is set aside and the order of the trial Magistrate in C .C. 224 of 1980, dated 10-4-1981 is restored.