SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1933 Supreme(Mad) 185

BURN
Arunachala Asari – Appellant
Versus
Anandayammal – Respondent


ORDER

Burn, J.

1. I cannot see that Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code has anything to do with ordinary conjugal rights; it deals with "maintenance" only and I see no reason why maintenance should be supposed to include anything more than appropriate food, clothing and lodging.

2. On the facts of this case it is clear that the husband has offered to give his wife maintenance in his house but he wants her to live in a separate room and not to associate with the other members of his family. She has refused this offer and in my opinion she has no sufficient grounds for refusing. She cannot claim under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be treated "as a wife"; she can only claim to be maintained on a scale appropriate to her station in life.

3. The order for payment of separate maintenance is therefore unsupportable, and I set it aside.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top