Effect on the order of maintenance.

This is a revision petition filed by the husband against the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Trivellore, who refused to set aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner herein. In M.C. No. 38 of 1957 the respondent got an order of maintenance against the petitioner herein. As per that order she is getting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20 per month. It is alleged by the petitioner that subsequently the respondent came and lived with him and then again separated. After the separation, a further attempt was made to reconcile them. In this further attempt a sale deed was also executed for the arrears of maintenance and before the Panchayatdars an agreement Exhibit P-2 was signed by both the husband and the wife stating that they will live together. The evidence of D.W. 2, who was a Panchayatdar, shows that at the Panchayat they suggested that a house must be fixed at Ayanavaram for the parties to live together. Exhibit D-1 is the letter written by D.W. 2 to the father of the respondent. That shows that a house had been fixed up, and advance rent paid and the father was asked to come with his daughter the very next day after the receipt of the letter. Exhibit D-2 is the reply of the father of the girl to this letter. In this he refers to the receipt of the letter written by D.W. 2 and points out that personally he has no objection to sending his daughter but his relations were giving him trouble, the reason being that on several previous occasions she had undergone several troubles and mediation was effected and on that account whatever might have happened he pacified them and sent her but did not get a good name and everybody was angry with him. He writes:

“What if the decree is not cancelled. What harm will be caused to him. It appears if such conduct happens, no good will result in their lives”.

It is obvious that subsequent to the letter they never joined. The husband then filed a petition to cancel the order of maintenance passed against him on the ground that his wife has been living with him for some time and the resumption of cohabitation put an end to the order of maintenance. Evidence was let in on both sides. On the question whether she was living with him or not, the oral evidence in this case was conflicting. The husband and his witnesses maintained that she was living with him for some time. The wife and her witnesses maintained that she never went and lived with him. But Exhibit D-2 gives the clue to what happened. Reading the original of Exhibit D-2 in Tamil it is quite clear that the father of the girl was complaining that he had very bad name for having sent her (the daughter) on the prior occasions and that he had to pacify his relations who came and quarrelled with him for having sent his daughter and he says “What does it matter if the decree was not cancelled", apparently referring to the talk that the decree was to be cancelled. It is clear from this document that some time before the compromise, that is, before the Panchayatdars on 18th April, 1959, the wife had come and lived with him and separated. Now the question is that if the wife had come and lived with the husband even for some days whether the wife could be allowed to rely on the original order of maintenance in M.P. No. 38 of 1957 and execute the order against the petitioner. The question is covered by the decision of Yahya Ali, J., in Kuppuswami Padayachi v. Jagadambal1 . The learned Judge refers to the decision of a Bench of this Court consisting of the Honourable Chief Justice and Mockett, J., in Venkayya v. Raghavamma2, where my Lord the Chief Justice held following the English decisions starting with Bateman v. Ross3, that a reconciliation after separation entirely did away with the effects of the separation. At page 27 the Honourable Chief Justice says referring to another case Williams v. Williams4

“In that case the Court had no hesitation in holding that the resumption of