Suit by Hindu wife against husband for separate maintenance.

The question that arises for determination in this revision petition is whether the place of marriage confers jurisdiction for a suit for maintenance filed by a Hindu wife against her husband.

The petitioner is the husband and the suit was instituted by his wife the respondent, in the District Munsiff’s Court of Tiruchirapalli for recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs.50 per mensem, for arrears and for other reliefs. The petitioner was residing in Chittoor, a place outside the jurisdiction of the Additional District Munsiff’s Court of Tiruchirapalli and on his contention that the District Munsiff’s Court of Tiruchirapalli had no jurisdiction to try the suit, the issue as to jurisdiction was tried as a preliminary issue. The District Munsiff of Tiruchirapalli upheld the objection holding that the cause of action for a suit for maintenance was the breach of the duty on the part of the husband to maintain his wife, which breach of duty occurred at Chittoor, and repelled the argument on behalf of the respondent that marriage being part of the cause of action for a suit for maintenance, the suit could be instituted in the place where the parties were married. The decision of the District Munsiff of Tiruchirapalli was reversed by the District Judge of Tiruchirapalli in appeal, who held that marriage also formed part of the cause of action and the place where the marriage was celebrated being Tiruchirapalli, the suit for maintenance could be instituted in the District Munsiff’s Court of that place.

It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that for a claim for maintenance, marriage doss not form part of the cause of action, though the general relationship which imposes an obligation on the part of the husband to pay maintenance arises out of the marriage; but the real cause of action for a suit for maintenance is the refusal to maintain which refusal in the present case had occurred at Chittoor, and that the Court in Chittoor alone, where not only the cause of action arose but the defendant resided had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Reliance was placed on the decision in Venugopal Naidu v. Lakshmi Ammal1. In that case a Hindu residing within the jurisdiction of the Vellore District Munsiff’s Court sued his wife in that Court for restitution of conjugal rights. The marriage of the parties took place at Bangalore and on an objection raised as to the jurisdiction of the Vellore District Munsiff’s Court, it was held that the cause of action for the suit arose within the jurisdiction of the Vellore District Munsiff’s Court and that Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. Beasley, C.J., quoted with approval the observation of Sargent, C.J., in Lalitagar Keshargar v. Bai Suraj2, viz., that

"the cause of action arises from the duty of the wife to reside with her husband unless he has been guilty of some matrimonial offence which justifies her, in the eye of the law, in living apart from him,"

and observed that it was the breach without lawful cause of the duty of the wife to reside with her husband that gave rise to the cause of action.

Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that the cause of action in a suit for maintenance is the same as that for a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. As observed by Sargent, C.J., in Lalitagar Keshargar v. Bai Suraj2:

"the gist of the action for restitution of conjugal rights is that married persons are bound to live together, and that one or other has withdrawn himself or herself without lawful cause as it was not contended that consummation was necessary by Hindu Law any more than it is by English Law to complete the marriage. It necessarily follows that whether the withdrawal or ‘subtraction’ as Blackstone terms it, be before or after consummation, there has been a violation of conjugal duty, which entitles the injured party to the relief prayed."

In Venugopal Naidu v. Lakshmi Ammal1, the marriage between the parties was not consummated, and it was held that whether there