Skip to content


Srinivasa Perumal Naicker Vs. Thayammal Alias Mangammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1958)1MLJ210
AppellantSrinivasa Perumal Naicker
RespondentThayammal Alias Mangammal
Excerpt:
- .....conjugal rights against his wife, who was claiming maintenance against him in the other suit. the learned district judge considered the grounds urged by him to be totally inadequate for staying the earlier maintenance suits and dismissed his petitions. hence these civil revision petitions,2. i have perused the records and heard the learned counsel on both sides. mr. g. ramanujam, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that his grievance was not so much against the refusal to stay the two suits, as against certain observations of the learned district judge in his order refusing the stay, namely, that the petitioner's petition for the custody of his children and for restitution of conjugal rights were mala fide, and that the decision in the maintenance suit filed by the wife would.....
Judgment:

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.

1. These are two petitions filed by one Srinivasa Perumal Naicker, for revising and setting aside the orders of the District Judge, Ramanathapuram, dismissing his applications for staying the trial of O.S. Nos. 138 and 158 of 1955 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Sattur, filed by his wife against him, one for her own maintenance and the other for maintenance of her minor children. The ground given by him was that he had filed a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act in the District Court, Ramanathapuram, for the custody of the minor children, whose maintenance had been asked for in one suit, and he had filed another petition in the District Court, Ramanathapuram, for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, who was claiming maintenance against him in the other suit. The learned District Judge considered the grounds urged by him to be totally inadequate for staying the earlier maintenance suits and dismissed his petitions. Hence these Civil Revision Petitions,

2. I have perused the records and heard the learned Counsel on both sides. Mr. G. Ramanujam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that his grievance was not so much against the refusal to stay the two suits, as against certain observations of the learned District Judge in his order refusing the stay, namely, that the petitioner's petition for the custody of his children and for restitution of conjugal rights were mala fide, and that the decision in the maintenance suit filed by the wife would operate as res judicata in these two petitions filed by him in the District Court. He stated that if it were made clear that those observations would have no effect on the two Original Petit ions filed by the petitioner and the petitioner saved from prejudice thereby, he had no grievance against the refusal to stay the suits themselves. I agree that those observations were inexpedient and unnecessary and hold that the petitioner seems to have been frightened by them, into filing these Civil Revision Petitions which are otherwise without merit. So they will not affect the petitioner in those two Original Petitions or other proceedings. Regarding the refusal of the stay of the suits themselves, I am of opinion that the refusal was proper. Those suits were filed earlier than the petitions for custody of the minor children and for restitution of conjugal rights. Besides, maintenance suits ought not to be stayed except on the clearest ground of necessity or law, since the persons seeking maintenance are needy persons, and staying the suit, without providing for their maintenance, might even result in their death by starvation.

3. These two Civil Revision Petitions deserve to be and are hereby dismissed with the above observations, but, in the circumstances, without costs.


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