Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

it may not be quite accurate to say that the explanation to the proviso to sub = section (3) supplies a further ground to the wife for claiming maintenance under section 488. The basis for passing an order section under sub - section (1), of section 488 is 'neglect or refusal to maintain; by a person haven the mans. There can be no two opinions o the question that there should be either neglect to refusal to maintain before a wife is entitled to claim maintenance under that section. The question therefore is not whether the explanation to the proviso to sub - section (3) gives a new ground for claiming maintenance's but the question is whether the offer made by the husband to a wife entitled to live separately that he will him maintain her on condition of living with him does or does not virtually amount to a refusal to maintain her. We think there could be only on answer to that question. When the only husband known to that the wife has "sufficient reason" or just ground to live separately from him the offer to maintain her on condition of living with him is not a valid offer at all. It is merely invasion of his livability to maintain his wife who is destitute. That, in our opinion, really amounts to a refuel within the meaning of S. 488 (1) when the wife makes an application for maintenance's the husband contests, that applications by making the an offer to maintain her on condition that he lives with him though he knows that she was entitled to remain separate from him by reason of his contracting another marriage. The offer is made with the knowledge that the refusal would be the only answer. In such a case therefore, the offer cannot be considered a valid offer but only an indirect was of refastened to maintain. The proviso to sub -section (3) read with its explanation does not create a new ground for the claiming maintenance but requires the magistrate to test the validity of the offer made by the husband to the wife to live with the him. Similar is the position when the offer is made under sub - section (4). If the offer so not valid there is nothing for the Magistrate to consider further, and in view of the fact that the destitute wife is entitled to the maintenance by husband having sufficient whether the offer is made before the issue of any order under sub - section (1) or after the issue of the order stated the question to be considered to is whether there has been neglect or refusal to maintain within the meaning of sub - section (3). As already stated the question to be considered is whether there as been neglect or refusal is maintain with the meaning of sub section (1) of is S. 488. It has been long held that a refusal or neglect must be a refusal or neglect in present that is the at the time of the proceedings. (See In re. Kuppa Mudali. 2 weir 630). The magistrate having jurisdiction under S. 488 (1) will have to consider whether at the time of the proceedings before the him there was been a neglect or refusal to maintain the wife. If he comes to that conclusion he has no alternative but to pass an order of maintenance's.

(10) Considerations extraneous to the requirements of that section cannot be entertained. Observations have been made in some of the reported cases have been to the effect that a husband is relieved case from the obligation to maintain his wife so long as the to volunteer remains absent ..... (see Ishar v. Soma Devi. ) Or that the where a wife deserts her husband first without any sufficient reason and dessert continues for 4 -5 years in spite of the husband pressing her to live with him with the result that the thereafter the wife, in such accuse is not entitle to claim maintenance under sub - section (1) merely because of her husband remarriage....... (see )., It is, undoubtedly true that in majority to cases where the wife voluntarily leaves her husband and refuses to return to her husband just ground or sufficient reason, it may be a good ground for sufficient reason, it may be her. But the situation may radically change is the husband remarries. In the mentioned case the if was held to be disentilted to maintenance from the husband., because she had deserted him and he was required to take a second wife daughter. We doubt very much, with respect if such considerations can legitimately entry into the questions as to whether maintenance's should be allowed under sub - section (1) of the should S. 488. It would appears that the wife had been palisade, becuases she had deserted her husband. It may be that on account of the callous manner in which she deserted her husband while their child was wound, she deserved no better treatment. But these are extraneous consideration for the purpose of sub -section (1) Desertion by the wife at some anterior date is not made a ground under the section for disallowing maintenance. It is her refusal for go back to her husband when a genuine offer is mad e which disentitled her to maintenance. For the purposes of that section the Magistrate has to see whether thief is destitute and the husband having means has refused to neglected to maintain her. If he find that these requirement are fulfilled in present that is that answer to her claim that some five years previously to she had voluntarily deserted her husband. In our opinion, the proper approach to the case of a husbands offer and wife refusal to live with her husband offer account of the remarriage would be to hold that there was no valid offer by the husband to maintain his wife. And, if there was no such offer, it must be held for the purposes of S. 488 (1) that there had been either neglect or refusal to maintain the wife.