1957 Supreme(Kar) 29
H.HOMBE GOWDA, MALIMATH
M. P. SUBRAMANIYAM – Appellant
Versus
T. T. PONNAKSHIAMMAL – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS revision petition raises an interesting point of law regarding the interpretation of the term 'is living in adultery' appearing in Clause (4) of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent filed petition No. C. Mis. 37 of 1955 in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Civil station, Bangalore, claiming maintenance from her husband under Section 488, Cr. P. C. The husband, viz. , the present petitioner, contended that he was not bound to maintain her and that she had disentitled herself to any maintenance by reason of her infidelity to him inasmuch as on 9-5-55 she was found to be in criminal intimacy with one Raman. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that adultery was proved on the part of the present respondent on two occasions. Relying on the rulings of certain High Courts, he further held that it does not amount to 'living in adultery' as contemplated under Section 488 of the Criminal procedure Code. On 6-7-56 he awarded maintenance at Rs. 15 per month from the present petitioner to the respondent. Being aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition has been filed by the husband.
( 2 ) WHEN the matter came up for hearing before Padmanabhi
Click Here to Read the rest of this document