Appellants: K.

Veeriah

Vs.

Respondent: Muthulakshmi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Cri. R.C. No. 16 of 1997

Decided On: 25.09.1998

FACTS
Muthulakshmi, the first respondent herein/wife, filed an application
claiming for maintenance from her husband, the petitioner herein, for
herself and for her minor childrenrespondents 2 to 4. The lower Court
passed an award of maintenance only in favour of the respondent-4
minor Sudha directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per
month and disallowed the claim of maintenance for the first
respondent, the wife, holding that she was not entitled to
maintenance as she was living in adultery and disallowed the claim
for the respondents 2 and 3, the minor children, on the ground that
those children are living with the petitioner herein.
CONT
However, the first respondent challenging the order of disallowing her
claim for maintenance and seeking for the enhancement of the
maintenance amount to the fourth respondent, minor daughter, filed
the revision before the learned Sessions Court at Madurai. On hearing
the parties, the learned Sessions Judge held that the wife, the first
respondent herein, was entitled to maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month
and enhanced the maintenance granted in favour of the fourth
respondent from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per month from the date of the
application filed before the lower Court in M.C. No. 1/95. This order
is under challenge by the husband, the petitioner herein.
ISSUE
WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT WAS BASED WITHOUT ANY
EVIDENCE OR NOT?
OBSEVATION
In Section 488(4) the words living in adultery; have been almost uniformly
interpreted as indicating an adulterous course of life as distinguished from a
single lapse from virtue. It has been suggested that a single act of adultery should
be enough to disentitle wife to maintenance. We are unable to accept the
suggestion. Hardships are bound to arise if the wife is totally debarred from the
remedy under this section because of a single lapse from virtue. Further, to
deprive her of maintenance for an occasional lapse may force her to live sinful life
and give her no chance to redeem herself.

In view of the above observation in Law Commission Report, the husband shall
establish by unimpeachable and cogent evidence that his wife at or about the
time of the filing of the maintenance petition has been leading continued
adulterous life. Admittedly, those materials are not available in this case.
JUDGEMENT
In these circumstances, I am of the view that the first
respondent/wife is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month as
held by the learned Sessions Judge. In fact, there is no dispute with
regard to the fact that the 2nd and 3rd respondents are now living
with the petitioner/husband. So the 4th respondent, who is now
living with the first respondent/wife, I entitled to a maintenance of
Rs. 250/- per month, as held in the impugned order.
In view of the above legal position, I concur with the view taken by
the learned Sessions Judge and dismiss the revision, as devoid of
merits.