IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.
Kurma Pullamma
Versus
Kurma Thatalingam alias Raju
Decided On : 20.04.1944
Maintenance - Section 488, Criminal P.C. - Offer to take back wife - Incompatibility of temperament - No physical ill-treatment - Dismissal of application upheld
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed a petition under Section 488, Criminal P.C. seeking maintenance, alleging neglect and cruelty by the husband. The Magistrate dismissed the petition, finding no cruelty or neglect, and noting that the husband had offered to take the wife back but she refused.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Magistrate's finding that there was no cruelty or neglect on the part of the husband. It emphasized that there was no evidence of physical ill-treatment and that the wife's refusal to live with the husband was due to incompatibility of temperament.
Issues: The main issue was whether the husband's offer to take back the wife should have been accepted, and whether the refusal to live with the husband amounted to neglect entitling the wife to maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of cruelty or neglect by the husband, the wife was bound to go and live with him, and the mere fact that the husband had taken a second wife after the refusal of the first wife did not amount to cruelty.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for maintenance, finding that the husband's offer to take back the wife was bona fide and that there was no justification for ordering maintenance to be paid to her.
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.
1. This is a petition by the wife against the order dismissing her petition filed Under Section 488, Criminal P.C. The Magistrate has found that there was no cruelty on the part of the husband and he also found that there was no neglect. The husband appears to be living with his parents and there had not been much of cordiality between the parents and the petitioner with the result that she left the house and has not returned to the husbands. After waiting for some years the husband has married a second wife. He offered to take back the petitioner but she refused to go and live with him. Hence the Magistrate dismissed the application.
2. I see no reason to interfere with the finding on the facts by the Magistrate that there was no cruelty or neglect. It is urged however for the petitioner that the offer of the husband to take her back ought not to have been accepted as a bona fide one and reliance is placed for this on the decision in Sundarammal v. Palaniandi Mudali AIR1940Mad292 . But that was a case in which there was evidence that the husband was guilty of having ill-treated the wife and it was the apprehension of physical ill-treatment that made her refuse to his offer. In this case, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the wife received any physical ill-treatment at the hands of her husband. It is only incompatibility of temperament which prevented the wife from living amicably with her husbands parents that resulted in her leaving her husbands house. So long as the husband is not guilty of any cruelty or of neglect she is bound to go and live with him. I, therefore, do not think I will be justified in ordering maintenance to be paid to her. The mere fact that the husband has taken a second wife and that too after waiting for several years and after the first wife refused to join him cannot be said to amount to cruelty. The petition is accordingly 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.