Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2173
2011 (5) CTC 109
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA
Manivannan
Versus
Thenmozhi
S.A.No.585 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009
Decided On: 18-04-2011
For the Appellant:N. Suresh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Karunakaran, Advocate.
A wife, not guilty of adultery or conversion, cannot be deprived of her right to maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act - Section 18(2) - Section 18(3) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and their interpretation. The court highlighted that a wife, who is not guilty of adultery or conversion, cannot be deprived of her right to maintenance. The court emphasized that the object of Section 18(3) is to ensure that a wife, who is guilty of desertion or cruelty, should not be made to suffer for want of maintenance if she is not having enough means to support herself. The court also referred to the decision in Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan, emphasizing that even a divorced wife found guilty of desertion and cruelty is entitled to maintenance.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit seeking maintenance, which was granted by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. The appellant, the husband, challenged the decision, arguing that the respondent was guilty of desertion and cruelty and that there was a specific bar provided in Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife was entitled to maintenance despite the findings of desertion and cruelty in the matrimonial proceedings. The court emphasized that a wife, not guilty of adultery or conversion, cannot be deprived of her right to maintenance. The court also highlighted that the object of Section 18(3) is to ensure that a wife, guilty of desertion or cruelty, should not be made to suffer for want of maintenance if she is not having enough means to support herself.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the wife to maintenance despite the findings of desertion and cruelty in the matrimonial proceedings and the interpretation of Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a wife, not guilty of adultery or conversion, cannot be deprived of her right to maintenance. The court emphasized the object of Section 18(3) to ensure that a wife, guilty of desertion or cruelty, should not be made to suffer for want of maintenance if she is not having enough means to support herself.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the courts below were justified in awarding maintenance to the wife, despite the findings of desertion and cruelty in the matrimonial proceedings.
1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, in A.S.No.58 of 2006, confirming the judgement and decree dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, in O.S.No.122 of 2001.
2. A recapitulation and 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:
(i) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit seeking maintenance.
(ii) The defendant/husband resisted the suit by filing written statement.
(iii) Whereupon the trial Court framed the relevant issues. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3.
(iv) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit, awarding maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month from the date of suit.
(v) Challenging and impugning the judgement and decree of the trial Court, the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the judgement and decree of the trial Court.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, this second appeal is focussed by the defendant on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:
"A) Whether the Courts below are right in granting decree of maintenance in favour of the respondent, when the respondent is guilty of desertion and cruelty?
B) Whether the Courts below are right in granting decree of maintenance without taking into consideration the divorce decree granted by the matrimonial court in HMOP 64 of 201 and confirmed the same in C.M.A.43 of 2004 on the ground of desertion and cruelty by the respondent herein?
C) Whether the Courts below are right in granting decree of maintenance when there is specific bar provided in Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act? (extracted as such)
4. My learned predecessor framed the following substantial question of law for consideration.
"Whether the courts below are right in granting decree of maintenance in favour of the respondent, when the respondent is guilty of desertion and cruelty as established before the matrimonial court."
5. Heard both sides.
6. The gist and kernal, the warp and woof of the argument as put forth and set forth on the side of the learned counsel for the appellant/husband would run thus:
(i) The husband, who is the appellant herein, filed the divorce petition, which was granted by the Sub Court and as against which, the appeal was filed before the District Court for nothing but to be dismissed. As against the said order, C.M.S.A. is pending before this Court. As such, the matrimonial Courts categorically held that the plaintiff/wife was guilty of desertion and cruelty, and in such a case, the Courts below, in the civil suit concerned were not justified in simply ignoring those facts and awarding maintenance.
(ii) A wife should be free from blemish before claiming maintenance, but in this case, the plaintiff/wife was held to be guilty of cruelty as against her husband, in addition to she having deserted her husband.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant/husband would pray for setting aside the judgements and decrees of the Courts below and for dismissing the original suit.
7. Per contra, in a bid to take the edge off and to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff/wife would advance his arguments, the warp and woof of them would run thus:
(i) The awarding of maintenance in a civil suit in favour of the wife and as against the husband is having nothing to do with the findings rendered by the matrimonial Court in the matrimonial proceedings as against the wife that she was guilty of cruelty as well as desertion.
(ii) Even a divorced wife, i.e. Divorcee, who was found to be guilty of desertion and cruelty towards her
