Back
1956 Supreme(AP) 189
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Pudota Chinnamma - Appellant
Versus
Sanapareddi Subbareddi - Respondent
Decided On : 09-14-56
A Christian wife has a right to claim maintenance from her husband during the subsistence of the marriage, and a suit for recovery of maintenance by a Christian wife against her husband is maintainable in a Civil Court.
Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - CHRISTIAN WIFE - JURISDICTION - INDIAN DIVORCE ACT (IV OF 1869) - SECTION 7 - PRINCIPLES AND RULES - MAINTENANCE SUIT - MAINTAINABILITY - RES JUDICATA - ALIENEE BOUND BY DECREE AGAINST ALIENOR - SALE SUBJECT TO MAINTENANCE DECREE.
Fact of the Case:
A Christian wife filed a suit for maintenance against her husband in the District Munsif's Court. The husband obtained an ex parte decree against her in a separate suit for maintenance. The wife's suit was dismissed on the ground that the District Munsif's Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for maintenance by a Christian wife against her husband. The wife appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the District Munsif's Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for maintenance by the Christian wife against her husband. The Court found that there was no statutory provision barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain such a suit and that the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869) did not impliedly take away such jurisdiction. The Court also held that the suit by the alienee was liable to be dismissed on the ground that his alienor was precluded on principles of res judicata from challenging the correctness of the order passed in the earlier proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether a Christian wife has a right to claim maintenance from her husband during the subsistence of the marriage? 2. Whether a suit for recovery of maintenance by a Christian wife against her husband is maintainable in a Civil Court? 3. Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain such a suit is barred by the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869)? 4. Whether an alienee is bound by a decree against his alienor?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A Christian husband is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife so long as she is willing to discharge her marital duties. 2. A Christian wife has a right to claim maintenance from her husband during the subsistence of the marriage. 3. A suit for recovery of maintenance by a Christian wife against her husband is maintainable in a Civil Court. 4. The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain such a suit is not barred by the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869). 5. An alienee is bound by a decree against his alienor.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restored the decree of the trial court, dismissing the suit with costs throughout.
( 2 ) THE trial Court held that the ex parte decree in O. S. No. 29 of 1943 was not obtained fraudulently, that the District Munsif s Court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of maintenance by a Christian wife against her husband, that the agreement of sale set up by the plaintiff was not genuine and that as the plaintiff purchased the properties subsequent to the passing of the decree in O. S. No. 29 of 1943, he was bound by it. The suit was accordingly dismissed.
( 3 ) ON appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Guntur reversed the decree and judgment. While holding that the contract of sale was not true and that the sale could not prevail over the charge created by the maintenance decree, if validly passed, over the plaint scheduled properties, he found that the District Munsif s Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit O. S. No. 29 of 1943, and that consequently the decree was void. The wife has, therefore, preferred the second appeal to this court.
( 4 ) SRI K. Ramachandra Rao, the learned advocate for the appellant, raised two contentions : (i) that the suit for recovery of maintenance by a Christian wife against her husband in the District Munsif s Court is not void and is not barred by the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869) ; and (ii) that it is not open to the purchaser from the husband to challenge the validity and binding nature of the decree by reason of the adverse orders passed against the husband in E. P. No. 654 of 1943 and I. A. No. 3154 of 1943.
( 5 ) THE answer to the first question depends upon whether a Christian husband is under a duty to maintain his wife and whether the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Court to enforce the right of the Christian wife to claim maintenance is taken away by any of the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869 ). There is no doubt that under Hindu Law a husband is bound to maintain his wife while she is willing to reside with him and discharge her duties and that she is entitled to enforce her right to maintenance in the ordinary civil Court-Vide Mayne s Hindu law (11th edition) page 818. Similarly, under Mahomedan Law, a husband is bound to maintain his wife (unless she is too young for matrimonial intercourse), so long as she is faithful to him and obeys his reasonable orders-Vide Mulla s Principles of Mahomedan Law (12th edition) page 227. The question that arises for consideration is, whether there is no such duty on the part of the Christian h
