Disentitlement to separate maintenance.

ORDER :- This is a revision petition which has been preferred against an order made by the learned Second Presidency Magistrate, G. T. Madras, to M. C. No. 1 of 1956.

2. The facts are: The petitioner in the lower court Saraswathi had been married by the respondent, Ponnambalam, in 1953. This Ponnambalam is a postman drawing a salary of Rs. 90 per month. Husband and wife lived happily for some time after the marriage. But as it often happens in Hindu households, the presence of the step mother of the husband had been a disturbing factor in this house-hold and husband and wife have fallen out and the wife says that she had had to go and live with her parents and on account of the fact that this Ponnambalam has not made any provision for her maintenance and has refusing and neglecting to maintain her, this Saraswathi has filed this petition under Sec. 488 Crl. P. C. On the appearance of the parties in the court, apparently they have not desired so go into the box and give evidence. There is nothing on record to show that they desired to go into the box and give evidence and that no opportunity was given to them by the Second Presidency Magistrate.

3. In fact, the parties seem to have had a discussion in the presence of the learned Presidency Magistrate and the substance of it is to be found inthe order made by him.

4. The gist of what the parties informed the Magistrate was that the wife was willing to go and live with her husband but at the same time seems to have insisted upon her being not exposed to the unpleasantness of the presence of the husbands relative, viz., the step-mother, and provision being made for her to live without this unpleasantness. Onthe other hand, the husband who seems to have been attached to his step-mother seems to have been insisting that she should live with him and his step-mother. Therefore notwithstanding the willingness of the wife to live with her husband, the parties could not amicably settle the matter, and therefore an order had to be made by the Presidency Magistrate for the maintenance of the wife under the provisions of Sec. 488 Crl. P. C.

5. Two points were taken before me, viz., that the wife was bound to live with her husband and that there is no case at all made out that he has refused to maintain her or neglected to maintain her and that he would do so readily if she comes and lives with him along with his step-mother; and secondly that the statements from the parties have not been recorded in the case by the Presidency Magistrate.

6. In regard to the first point, it is now settled law in England, America and India, that a wife is entitled to insist that she should not be exposed to the unpleasantness of the relatives of her husband and that suitable provisions should be made for her to live with her husband in privacy. The husband no doubt has got the right to choose the domicile for the wife and she should follow him when that domicile is one which is not legitimately repugnant to her and injurious to her health etc. In all these matters as pointed in Simons Edition of Halsburys Laws of England, the casting vote is not with the husband or the wife but it is a matter which has got to be decided amicably between them; at times the husband may have to choose between his parents, mother or his wife.

He must come to his own conclusion in his own mind and must not insist upon incompatible parties like his own wife and mother living together and making life a hell for them. In this case, there seems to be no ground for grouse against the wife by the husband excepting that she could not tolerate this step-mother. Nobody can blame her when probably this step-mother is a virago who is making the life of this young woman a great hardship by insisting upon several requirements which this wife may not be able to fulfil. In fact this seems to be a case of tyranny of mother-in-law over daughter-in-law the proverbial theme of discord in Hindu households. Therefore I cannot say that the wife has