Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
C.S.Dharmadhikari, J.
Appellants: Darubai
Vs.
Respondent: Shankar Narayan Petil
Civil Revn. Appln. No. 331 of 1972Decided On: 01.03.1973
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: B.S. Deshpande, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: M.S. Deshpade, Adv.
Looking to the language of the provisions under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, a legal presumption has been introduced if a married woman commits suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. The period of seven years itself is suggestive of the consideration of past period before the introduction of this Section. Therefore, a plain reading of this provisions permits to drawn the instances of cruelty even prior to the date of commencement of this provision. It is therefore permissible for a Court enquiring a case to look into the past conduct prior to the commencement date of the amended provision. It clearly authorises the Court to base its conclusions on the past insances of cruelty. The legal presumption provided under this provision clearly includes the past instances of cruelty spread over a period of seven years from the date of marriage of the victim.
The language and purport of the provision under Section 498-A I.P.C. introduced by the amendment on 25th December, 1983 clearly peaks of past conduct which drives a woman to commit suicide at a later date. The construction of this section clearly discloses that if a cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A committed on a married woman drives her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, the person guilty of such wilful conduct is liable for punishment. The act of suicide or causing grave injury or danger to her life is meant as a result of the past events.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of maintenance amount and for future maintenance and claimed a decree for Rs. 2700/- as arrears of maintenance ad future maintenance at the rate of Rs 75/- per month. The defendant filed an application dated 10-2-1972 under Section 3 of the Act for stay of the suit on the grounds stated in the application, According to the defendant, the present suit is a suit for money. The defendant earns his livelihood wholly by agriculture carried on within the limits of the State of Bombay and he ordinarily engages personally in agriculture within those limits, and therefore, he is an agriculturist within the meaning of the aforesaid Act. The field property of para, 2 of the said Act are made applicable tot he whole of the Buldana district and the Part II of the said Act is in force in the area. Therefore, the present suit being a suit for money the same is liable to be stayed under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act. This application was opposed by the plaintiff, who suit for money, but this is a suit for recovery of arrears of maintenance and for future maintenance by the wife against her husband and for a charge on both counts on the property stated in Schedule II annexed to the plaint, According to the plaintiff, the provisions of Section 3 will not apply to such a suit in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act.
3. After hearing the parties on these rival contentions the learned Judge held that the present suit is liable to be stayed under Section 3 (2) (b) of the Act, this being a suit for money and the defendant being an agriculturist and in view of the fact that part II of the Act has been made applicable to the district of Buldana. Against this order this revision application has been filed.
4. Shri B.S. Deshpande, who appears for the applicant-plaintiff, contended before me that this cannot be termed as a suit for money within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (b) of the Act. He relied upon the definition of the term "maintenance" in sub-clause (b) of Section 3 (2) of the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act According to shri B.S. Deshpande, the maintenance means in all case an adequate provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment. This has nothing to do with the money as such. The amount which is claimed in the suit is only claimed in lieu of maintenance. Therefore, in substance it is a suit for maintenance and not a suit for money. This being the position, according to him, as the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Act are not applicable to such a suit, the order passed by the learned Judge is illegal and without jurisdiction.
5. On the other hand, Shri M.S. Deshpande, who appears for the non applicant -defendant, contended before me that the present suit is a pure and simple suit for money. The plaintiff has claimed a decree for money in the suit. She has claimed an amount of Rs. 2700/- as arrears of maintenance and had further claimed a decree in terms of money for future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. This being the position the said suit is governed by the provisions of Section 3 (2) (b) of the Act. He further contended that the intention of the Legislature is quite clear from the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. Section 8 application of the provisions of the Act to certain decrees, including a decree for money, arising out of a claim for maintenance. Therefore, it is clear that a suit for money arising out of a claim for maintenance is also a suit for money as contemplated by Sec
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
