Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. It would be a matter of very great regret to us to be compelled by Hindu law, or by any other consideration, to endorse, this judgment. The Hindu law, while it enjoins upon the wife the duty of attendance on, obedience to, and veneration for, the husband, inculcates that the husband must honour the wife and treat her with affection and courtesy. The husband is no doubt entitled to restrain the liberty of the wife, and she is bound to refrain from going to any place where her husband forbids her to go; and the sages mention only certain cases where the wife may forsake the husband (see Colebrooke's Digest, Vol. II, Book IV, Chapter I, Section 2, and Chapter IV, Section 2). But it is nowhere laid down that the wife is bound to live with a husband who habitually treats her with cruelty, and so ill-treats her as to endanger her personal safety: and in this connection we may refer to Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as showing what the Legislature considered to be the correct law on the subject, as also to the observations of Garth, C.J. in Sitanath Mookerjee v. Haimabutty Dabee 24 W.R. 377. We think it amply established in this case that the defendant's violence towards his wife has been such as to create the most serious apprehension for her safety should she continue in his power: and under these circumstances we hold that she is fully justified in leaving her husband and is entitled to be maintained from his income. We reverse the decree of the Lower Court so far as it dismisses Matangini's suit, and direct that she receive maintenance at the rate of Rs. 32 per mensem from the income enjoyed by the defendant No. 1 under his father's will. She is entitled to recover at the above rate from Ashin to Falgoon 1296 (Amli) and for the remainder of her husband's life. And she will got her costs in both Courts.