SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(AP) 299

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.D.PATNAIK
Jogi Nageswaramma - Appellant
Versus
Jogi Sivarao - Respondent
Decided On : 08-07-90

The executing court cannot go behind the decree and refuse to execute it on the allegation that the wife is living in adultery.

Headnote:

MAINTENANCE - HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 - SECTION 18(3) - WIFE LIVING IN ADULTERY - FORFEITURE OF MAINTENANCE - EXECUTION OF DECREE - SECTION 47 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - JURISDICTION OF EXECUTING COURT - NULLITY OF DECREE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the wife of the respondent, filed a suit for maintenance and obtained a compromise decree. The respondent, the judgment-debtor, objected to the execution of the decree on the grounds that the petitioner was living in adultery, the cost of the paddy bags was not properly calculated, and he had no means to pay the amount. The lower court dismissed the execution petition on the ground that the petitioner was living in adultery.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and refuse to execute it on the allegation that the wife is living in adultery. The proper course for the husband is to file a separate suit for cancellation of the maintenance decree. The court also held that the executing court can entertain an objection that the decree is a nullity and can refuse to execute the decree.

Issues: 1. Whether the executing court can refuse to execute a decree on the ground that the wife is living in adultery. 2. Whether the husband can file a separate suit for cancellation of the maintenance decree.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The executing court cannot go behind the decree and refuse to execute it on the allegation that the wife is living in adultery. 2. The husband can file a separate suit for cancellation of the maintenance decree.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the lower court dismissing the execution petition and remanded the matter to the lower court for decision on the other objections raised by the husband.

N. D. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who is the wife of respondent filed suit O. S. 143 of 1969 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Machilipatnam for maintenance. In that a compromise decree was passed according to which, the respondent has to pay six bags of paddy to the petitioner every year towards maintenance. The petitioner-decree-holder filed E. P. No. 219 of 1984 for realisation of the arrears of maintenance due to her by arrest of the judgment-debtor. The respondent who is the judgment-debtor raised the following objections : (1) that after the decree was passed the petitioner married one Katta Gujju during the summer of 1970 and eversince she is living is adultery with him and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance ; (2) the cost of the paddy bags is not properly calculated ; (3) that he has no means to pay the amount and therefore he cannot be arrested. The learned District Munsif before whom the execution petition is filed enquired into the matter. On behalf of the petitioner one witness was examined and on behalf of respondent four witnesses were examined. Basing on their evidence the learned District Munsif accepted the respondent s case that the petitioner is living with the said Gujju and is leading adulterous life and therefore she is not entitled for maintenance and accordingly dismissed the execution petition. As against that the present revision is filed.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as long as the decree for maintenance is not set aside, the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and refuse to execute the decree on the allegation that the wife is living in adultery. When it is the contention of the husband that the petitioner is living in adultery, he can file a petition for divorce and obtain divorce from the Court or file a suit for cancellation of maintenance decree. But till the decree is set aside, the respondent is bound to pay the maintenance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the wife forfeits to claim maintenance if she is unchaste. This contention is based upon Section 18 (3) of The Hindu adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 which reads as follows :"a Hindu Wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a hindu by conversion to another religion". The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon several decisions in support of his contention that when a wife becomes unchaste she forfeits the claim for maintenance. In B. Anasuya vs. B. Rajaiah it was held that on resumption of co-habitation the decree for maintenance is annulled. It was pointed out:"whether it is a consent decree or one made or one passed on the adjudication by the Court, in either case, the question is whether its effect is not demolished by the subsequent conduct of the parties". This decision follows an earlier decision of the Madras High Court reported in Vasantam Venkayya vs. Vasantam Raghavamma wherein it is held that when there is resumption of cohabitation it demolishes the effect of the decree. But they were cases where the wife resumes cohabitation with the husband and they live together, the decree becomes ineffective. When the wife lives with the husband she is maintained by her husband and there is no question of husband providing for her separate residence and maintenance. In the present case as was stated above the contention of the has band is that by virtue of the subsequent conduct of the wife i. e. , living in adultery, she became disentitled to claim maintenance and therefore the decree cannot be executed. It is further contended by the learned counsel that this question has to be decided by the executing Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfacti



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top