Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The question that requires determination in this revision case is whether husband is entitled to resist the claim of the wife for maintenance on the ground of adultery after an order has been passed in favour of the wife i.e., at the stage of enforcement of the order. Briefly the facts of this revision may be stated:

2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent She filed a petition, M.C. No. 20 of 1954, for maintenance against her husband contending that he was neglecting to maintain her and the minor children. The claim was resisted by the husband on the ground of adultery on the Dart of the wife. After an enquiry the wife granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40/- while the daughters were given Rs. 20/- each. The respondent paid the maintenance as per the orders of the Court till 5-4-1957 but subsequently stopped payment. Thereupon, the petitioner sought to enforce the order passed against the respondent in M.C. No. 20 of 1954 to recover the arrears of maintenance. The respondent filed a counter under Section 488, Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of Criminal Procedure Code admitting that an order granting maintenance had been passed against him and he was paying the same for sometime. He, however, contended that as the petitioner-wife was living an adultery and had committed several acts of adultery even subsequent to the passing of the order he was not bound to pay her maintenance -- past, present or future. So far as the daughters were concerned, he showed his willingness to pay the amount due to them under the maintenance order.

"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."

5. Undoubtedly both the sub-sections contemplate a stage subsequent to the passing of the maintenance order, in the instant case, when the wife-petitioner applied for execution of the order in her favour the husband pleaded that he was not liable to pay as the petitioner was living in adultery. It is to be noted that the same plea was raised by the husband when the application for maintenance was filed but it was negatived by the Trial Court. Subsequent to the passing of the order he made some payments and it was only when the wife filed a petition for enforcing the order under Section 488 (3). Cr.P.C. that the husband came out with the same plea once again. In his written statement he gave elaborate reasons for withholding the evidence in regard to the unchastity of his wife and in para 6 has stated as under:

"The respondent submits that there are several acts of adultery and incest committed by the 1st petitioner even after the date of the order of maintenance, that the respondent strongly feels that continuing to pay the 1st petitioner the maintenance allowance is only abetting and encouraging her to lead the life of incest and adultery. Thus, the respondent is not bound to pay the 1st petitioner any amount by way of past, present or future allowance for maintenance."

6. It is argued that this plea is not open to the respondent under Sub-section 13) of Section 488, Cr.P.C. The words "sufficient cause" in that sub-section according to the learned counsel contemplate such cases as of divorce or of the wife joining the husband subsequent to the passing of the order which relieved the husband from the obligation to comply with the order but the plea of adultery was not available under it, The husband could only raise the objection and secure a finding in his favour under Sub-section (5).

8. It is rot and could not be the case of the petitioner that once an order of maintenance has been passed she was at liberty to lead a life which would not conform to the ordinary notions of morality. This would defeat the very object of the provisions of Section 488, Cr.P.C., which is meant to obviate vagrancy. In fact Section 488 (5) imposes an obligation on the wife to lead a chaste life on the pain of cancellation of the maintenance order in case it is established otherwise. It is thus beyond controversy that chastity on the part of the wife is a condition precedent to the enforcement of the order and the order is liable to be set aside in case the wife is found to be leading an immoral life, but the question is whether the plea can be raised when the wife is trying to seek the enforcement of the order. The only direct authority to substantiate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is found in Ram Kishore v. Bimla Devi, . It has been observed therein that the "..... 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."