Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order."

20. It, therefore, seems to me that on a correct interpretation of these words only that type of causes can be urged under Sub-section (3) which do not challenge or contest the order passed under Sub-sections (1) and (2). If a plea (which was open to the husband at the time when he contested the claim of his wife but was not raised by him), is advanced at the time when she applies for a warrant of execution, it cannot be considered under Sub-section (3). He can only file an application for the cancellation of the order under Sub-section (5) and then this plea can be heard. In this case if the applicant contends that his wife was living in adultery at the time when the maintenance order was passed against him, he has to thank himself because although he contested this claim, he did not take this plea.

22. As I agree with the second view, I am of the opinion that the words 'fails for sufficient cause to comply' cannot be stretched to include contentious pleas. Only such circumstances which show that the order has exhausted itself can be placed before the court. In cases where the wife has ceased to be a wife or the child has become a major and is able to maintain itself or a reconciliation has taken place between the husband and wife and she is living with her husband it is open to the husband or the father to place the changed picture before the Magistrate with a view that the application for execution filed by the wife or child be dismissed. But where the tension remains and the order is evaded on the allegation that the wife is living in adultery, it amounts to challenging the order of maintenance and is a refusal and not a failure to comply. The husband cannot be permitted to decide a contention in his own favour and then disobey the order of the court. Such a plea cannot be heard under Sub-section (3) of Section 488 Cr. P. C. It is, however, open to him to proceed under Sub-section (5) praying for a cancellation of the order.

25. I have mentioned above that the order of maintenance in this case was also in respect of the minor son of the applicant and the applicant has not paid anything even to him. This claim was certainly executable and it could not nave been refused even if the wife was living in adultery.

26. I, therefore, maintain the order passed by the Magistrate in this case and dismiss this application of revision. The stay order is vacated.