Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This is an appeal preferred against the order made by the learnt Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in O.P. No. 43 of 1953.

2. The facts are: The appellant-petitioner before us Mahalingam Pillai is the husband of the respondent Amsavalli. The appellant is a resident of Poundarigapuram village and the respondent is a resident of Abhishekamangalam village in Nannilam Taluk. The married life of this couple pawed short-lived. The case for the husband in a notice which he gave before filing this O.P. was that the respondent had left him to lead an openly immoral and improper life. In this petition his case was that she had eloped with one Saravana Pillai, P.W. 4, of Maruvancheri in Nannilam Taluk in January, 1952 and has been living with him as his concubine openly. The case for the wife was that this appellant has had incestuous relationship with his sister Gundu Achi and that on that account there were quarrels-and finally the petitioner beat her, removed her tali, branded and drove her away from his residence. The petitioner has come to Court on the foot of the allegations-setout above for dissolution of marriage under Section 5(1)(b) of Madras Act VI of 1919.

7. The term "concubine" has long had a definite meaning, whether expressed in the language of India or of Europe. The persons decscribed by it had and have still, where it remains applicable, a recognised status below that of a wife and above that of a harlot: Naghubhai v. Monjhibhai (1926) 51 M.L.J. 577 : L.R. 53 I.A. 153 : A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 73 from two words "com" meaning "with" and "cubere" meaning "to lie" and connotes a single woman consenting to unlawfully cohabit with a man generally, as though the marriage relation existed between them, without any limit as to the duration of such illicit intercourse, and actually commencing cohabiting with him in pursuance of that understanding and becoming his concubine or as it is usually expressed in modern terms, his kept mistress, which amounts to the same thing. This is the meaning given in standard lexicons also. In the "New English Dictionary on Historical Principles" edited by James Murray, Volume II, page 777, the definition of a concubine is given as a woman who cohabits with a man without being his wife. A kept mistress. In Ballantine's "Law Dictionary", 1948 edition (The Lawyers' Co-operative Publishing Co., Rochester, New York) concubinage is defined as the state of a woman who sustains a relation involving continuous and regular illicit intercourse with a man to whom she is not a wife. Such a relation need not exist for any considerable period of time to constitute concubinage, but the relation which gives rise to the disreputable state of a woman indicated by the term, may like that of marriage, be contracted or assumed in a day as easily as in a year See Handerson v. People 124 Illinois. 607. Concubine is a woman who habitually assumes and exercises towards a man not her husband the rights and privileges which belong to the matrimonial relation, see 172 Ind. 134. The wife without a title. The concubine must not be confounded with the courtesan, or even with what is ordinarily called a mistress. Concubinage is the act or practice of cohabiting in sexual intercourse without the authority of law or legal marriage See Gauff v. Johnson 161 L. Ed. 975. In the American Jurisprudence, Volume 35 (Published by the Lawyers' Co-operative Publishing Co., Rochester, New York and Bancroft Whitney Co., San Francisco, California) Section 9, it is stated:

Although concubinage was in ancient times recognised in certain countries as a species of marriage, it is not so regarded in Christendom. Marriage differs from concubinage in that the intent in the former is to agree to assume the relationship of husband and wife, whereas intent in the latter is to assume no such relationship Tedder v. Tedder 108 S.C. 271.

8. Similar definitions are to be found in Bouvier's "Law Dictionary", Rawles Third Edition, page 579; Ramanatha Iyer's "Law Lexicon", (M.L.J. Publication) page 222; and Wharton's "Law Lexicon". An historical account of concubinage in the West and the East is to be found in Hasting's "Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics", Volume 3, pages 809 to 820 and "Encyclopaedia Brittannica," 13th Edition, Volume 5-6, page 841. The distinction between a wife and concubine and harlot is that a concubine is below that of a harlot and that in that status the woman lacks the permanent guarantees of married life is well brought out in the following quotation from Shakespeare in Doctor Johnson's Dictionary of English Language, Volume I, (1806):

I know I am too mean to be your Queen:
And yet too good to be your concubine.
But at the same time a concubine is to be distinguished from a harlot. The latter solicits to immorality, the former is reserved by one man. A concubine is affected to one man only although in an irregular union and occupies a recognised status below that of wife and above that of harlot.

9. This status of a concubine has a recognised position in Hindu Law and in fact entitles the woman to certain maintenance rights, provided she fulfils certain conditions like that she must be exclusively and continuously kept by her paramour and the connection should not be adulterous and she should maintain sexual fidelity towards her paramour. Such a woman is called a avaruddhastri and her right to maintenance from the estate of her paramour after his death is enjoined by two texts of Kartyayana and Narada and this is the subject-matter of a considerable amount of case-law. See Mitakshara, Ch. II S.I. Paras. 7, 28 N.R. Raghavachari, "Hindu Law", M.L.J. Publication, page 224, Section 209; Mayne on "Hindu Law and Usage", Eleventh Edition, page 815 and following; Appa Rao, "The Law of Maintenance and Alimony in British India", M.L.J., page 43; Naghubhai v. Mongkibhai (1926) 51 M.L.J. 577 : L.R. 53 I.A. 153 : A.I.R. 1926 (P.C.) 73, Bai Monghi bai v. Bai Naghubai (1922) I.L.R. 47 Bom. 401, Akku Pralhad v. Ganesh Pralhad I.L.R. (1945) Bom. 401, Shiva Kumari v. Udeya Pratap Singh A.I.R. 1947 All. 314, Ramamohana Rao v. Ragavamma (1941) 1 M.L.J. 471, Bhagavat Sastrulu v. Lakshmikantam (1940) 1 M.L.J. 60, Rama Raja Thevar v. Papammal (1925) 49 M.L.J. 348 : I.L.R. 48 Mad. 805, Ramanarasu v. Buchamma (1899) 10 M.L.J. 62 : I.L.R. 23 Mad. 282, Sikki v. Verikatasamy (1879) 8 M.H.C.R. 144.