Sebastian Pillai V. Magdalene

1949     Present : Gratiaen J.

SEBASTIAN PILLAI, Appellant, and MAGDALENE,
Respondent

 S. C. 568-M. C. Kayts 10,641

Maintenance Ordinance-Issue of summons-Examination of applicant, on oath or affirmation-Not condition precedent to issue of summons- Chapter 76-Section 14.

In regard to section 14 of the Maintenance Ordinance, the failure to examine the applicant on oath or affirmation before the issue of summons is at best an irregularity which does not necessarily vitiate all subsequent proceedings.

 Namasivayam v. Saraswathy (1949) 50 N. L. R. 333 dissented from. Podina v. Sada (1900) 4 N. L. R. 109 followed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate, Kayts.

 S. Nadesan, with A. M. Ameen, for the defendant appellant.

C. Thiagalingam, with V. Aruiambalam, for the applicant respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

495

September 7, 1949. GRATIAEN J.-

In these proceedings the applicant, who is the wife, sued Her husband for maintenance. After trial the learned Magistrate ordered the husband to pay to the applicant a sum of Rs. 25 per mensem.

The parties had been married for over ten years and since 1946 there had been unpleasantness from time to time between them, but in. my opinion the facts disclosed in the evidence leave reasonable grounds for the belief that the union has not broken down irreparably. As so often happens in such cases, the husband and wife have so far had little opportunity of enjoying each other's company except in the presence of their respective relatives. Without attempting to generalise in matters of this sort, I am content to say that in the present case the arrangement has not worked well, and that the interference of the proverbial " in-laws " proved to be a source of constant irritation. It is common ground that the first year of the marriage was spent in the house of the bride's parents. It was then decided that they should live alone, but they unwisely selected a house situated in the same compound as that of his sister. These two women quarrelled incessantly, and the husband's attempts to associate himself with these petty squabbles aggravated the situation. In November, 1946, the wife left him after a quarrel and returned to her parents. In 1947, through the good offices of a mutual friend, a reconci­liation was effected, and for some months the parties lived together again. In March, 1948, there was another incident, and the wife left her husband a second time.

The basis on which the wife initiated proceedings under the Maintenance Ordinance was that her husband " had deserted her on March 30, 1948, and failed to maintain her " since that date. The trial was fixed for December 10, but on that date a very sensible adjustment was arrived at whereby the wife agreed to return to her husband on condition that he provided a separate house in which they could live together relieved of the irksome and irritating presence of his sister. The evidence shows that the husband thereafter honoured the terms of this arrangement On February 11, 1949, however, the wife's brother, acting no doubt with good intentions but nevertheless unwisely, offe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document