Judges : P.GOVINDA MENON
Abdurahiman Musaliar - Appellant
Versus
Ayissu - Respondent
Case No : Crl. R. P. No. 134 of 1961
Decided On : 10/30/1961
Advocates Appeared :
K. A. Varghese; For Petitioner M. C. Sridharan; For Respondent
Maintenance - Jurisdiction of Magistrate under S.488 Cr. P.C. - The court held that the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to order maintenance to the wife under S.488 Cr. P.C. as the wife was no longer the wife of the applicant at the time the application was made. However, the award of maintenance to the child was confirmed.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered a revision petition challenging the order of the Magistrate to pay maintenance to the wife and child.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to order maintenance to the wife as she was no longer the wife of the applicant at the time the application was made. However, the award of maintenance to the child was confirmed.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Magistrate under S.488 Cr. P.C. to order maintenance to the wife after divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the fact of divorce comes to the knowledge of the wife before the date of the petition, she is not entitled to invoke the provisions of S.488 Cr. P.C. for maintenance.
Final Decision: The order awarding maintenance to the wife was set aside, but the award of maintenance to the child was confirmed.
1. This is a revision petition from the order of the Munsiff-Magistrate of Quilandy ordering the revision petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 15 per mensem to his wife from the date of the petition till 11-11-60, the date of expiry of the period of Iddat and Rs. 10/- per mensem to his child from the date of the petition.
2. It is contended that the fact that he had divorced his wife prior to the filing of the petition deprived the Magistrate of jurisdiction under S.488 Cr. P.C., to order maintenance to the wife. A reference to S.488 would show that if on the date on which the application is made the relationship of husband and wife exists the Magistrate will have jurisdiction to pass an order. The proper date to be considered is the date on which the application is made. If the fact of divorce comes to the knowledge of the wife only after the filing of the petition, she may be entitled to file a petition.
3. Here in this case the wife has clearly admitted that she knew about the divorce before the date of the petition. Therefore the application was not competent at the time it was made as she was no longer the wife of the applicant. She may be entitled to claim maintenance for the period of Iddat in a civil court, but she is not entitled to invoke the provisions of S.488 Cr. P.C. This is the view that is taken in the case in Amad Giri v. Mst. Begha (A.I.R.1955 Jammu & Kashmir 1). I am in respectful agreement with this view. The order awarding maintenance to the wife is, therefore set aside.
4. When the mother has the custody of the child, she is entitled to claim maintenance for the child and the award of maintenance to the child is, therefore, correct and calls for no interference. That portion of the order is, therefore, confirmed. With this modification the revision petition is dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.