Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.53 seconds)
Bai Appibai vs Khimji Cooverji on 14 December, 1934 cites

Pandit Someshwar Dutt vs Pandit Tirbhawan Dutt on 21 March, 1934

In Someshwar Dutt v. Tirbhawan Dutt (1934) L.R. 611. A. 224 : s.c. 36 Bom. L.R. 652, the Privy Council have expressed their disinclination to stress the structure of pleadings too strictly, if fair notice of the plaintiff's case has been given and issue joined on an inquiry but faintly adumbrated. There is no specific issue in this case as to desertion, but the question has to be considered in determining the issue whether the plaintiff is entitled to separate maintenance. It was argued by counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff's proper remedy on the alleged desertion was to have sued the defendant for restitution of conjugal rights. Whether she should or should not have done so is not a matter which is for me to consider. The most important question is whether she is entitled to separate maintenance, and before discussing the law on the subject I will deal briefly with the facts.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Savitribai Widow Of Dhakji Balcrustna vs Luximibai Widow Of Ganoba Ananta, And ... on 1 May, 1878

15. The question still remains whether the plaintiff is entitled to separate maintenance. The burden lies upon her to show the special circumstances which entitle her to a separate maintenance. Under the Hindu law the right of a wife to maintenance is a matter of personal obligation on the husband. It rests on the relations arising from the marriage, and is not dependent on or qualified by a reference to the possession of any property by the husband. The first duty of a Hindu wife, however, is to submit to her husband's authority and stay under his roof, and not to quit his house without any adequate excuse or justifying cause. If, however, the husband by reason of his misconduct, or cruelty in the sense in which that term is used by the English Matrimonial Courts, or by his refusal to maintain her, or for any other justifying cause, makes it compulsory or necessary for her to live apart from him, he must be deemed to have deserted her, and she will be entitled to separate maintenance and residence. Is the desertion of the plaintiff by her husband following upon a denial of the marriage a justifying cause for allowing her separate maintenance ? The texts collected in Savitribai v. Luximibai and Sadasiv Ganoba (1878) I.L.R. 2 Bony 573, 597-98 seem to show that a husband who deserts a " faultless wife " or a wife "obedient to his commands" is bound to maintain her even though living apart. A wife forsaken without fault may, according to Yajnavalkya, even compel her husband to pay a third of his wealth, or if poor, to provide maintenance for her: see Colebrooke's Digest of Hindu Law, Vol. 2, Book IV, 72. This is, however, a penal provision, and has been rarely enforced by the Courts.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Bai Jivi vs Narsing Lalbhai on 14 October, 1926

18. I might here refer to the case of Bai Jivi v. Narsing (1926) 29 Bom. L.R. 332 in which it was held that a husband could not get a decree straightaway for restitution of conjugal rights in a suit which was filed after he had deserted his wife, and after she had obtained an order for maintenance under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, without hearing the wife in her defence, and without investigating the conduct of all the parties, as in the opinion of the Court the suit might well have been merely a device to avoid the husband's just obligation to provide for his wife's maintenance. The conduct of the parties is certainly a matter for consideration, and considering the defendant's conduct towards his wife after May 12, it appears to me that the fault for the desertion and consequent separation, lies really at his door. In my opinion the plaintiff is entitled to separate maintenance and residence.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ekradeshwari Bahuasin Saheba vs Homeshwar Sing on 5 March, 1929

22. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to the declaration she seeks for, and to an order for separate maintenance and residence, but not for any order in respect of the ornaments and the debts. No exact rule can be laid down as to the amount claimable for maintenance. Every case has to be judged on its own facts. In determining the amount, however, the Court usually takes into consideration the reasonable wants of the plaintiff, her position in life, her husband's means and income, as well as the mode of the former life of herself and her husband. She can claim maintenance even when she has property of her own, though that fact is also to be taken into account in determining the quantum. The law on the subject was stated by the Privy Council in Ekradeshwari Bahuasin v. Homeshwar Singh (1929) I.L.R. 8 Pat. 840 : s.c. 31 Bom. L.R. 816, P.C. as follows (p. 845) :-
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

Sitabai vs Ramchandrarao V. Bhonsle on 26 February, 1910

The fact, therefore, remains that she was deserted by her husband; and it is not his case that he deserted her because she called upon him to fulfil the promises which according to him he was not bound to do. The case of Sitabai v. Ramchandrarao (1910) 12 Bom. L.R. 373 was a case in which the husband had subjected his wife to gross cruelty after making unfounded charges against her chastity which entitled her to separate maintenance, but it was held by Chandavarkar J. at p. 378 that cruelty was not according to Hindu law necessary in order to entitle the wife to separate maintenance if she has been unjustifiably abandoned or forsaken by the husband. Defendant's counsel further relied upon the offer made by the defendant, not in his examination-in-chief, but for the first time in cross-examination, in answer to a question by the plaintiff's counsel, that he was willing to take the plaintiff back if she came and lived with him at Ujjain, and his counsel repeated the same offer in his closing address. The Court is entitled to consider the bona fides of the husband's offer to return to his wife. But in my opinion the defendant's offer was not bona fide. It was not only belated, but was evidently prompted more by a desire to avoid the risk of payment of separate maintenance rather than by a desire to take back the plaintiff as his wife. Is the plaintiff bound to accept such an offer from a husband who had first denied the validity of the marriage and then deserted her? Defendant's counsel contended that in order to entitle the plaintiff to separate maintenance she must show that she was always ready and willing to perform her obligations as wife, even after the desertion, and to go and live with the defendant as his wife. This, however, is not a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. It is a case for maintenance on the ground of desertion or abandonment without just cause. It was not she who quitted her husband's house of her own accord and without an adequate excuse, but it was the husband who refused to have anything to do with her after denying the validity of the marriage, and thereafter virtually refused to maintain her.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bhikubai Yeshwantrao Meher vs Hariba Sawalaram Meher on 30 September, 1924

In order to determine the amount payable to the plaintiff there is generally a reference to the Commissioner of this Court to ascertain the value of the husband's estate and his means or income, but it is not always necessary: see Bhikubai v. Hariba (1924) 27 Bom. L.R. 13, though that was a case in which only the amount of bare maintenance was to be assessed. I do not think that in this case any useful purpose will be served by making such a reference, as the defendant's property and income have been sufficiently investigated in the course of the evidence. Taking everything into consideration I think the fairest order I can make is to award the plaintiff Rs. 100 per month for her separate maintenance and residence during her natural life. Defendant to pay the said sum to the plaintiff, or her attorneys, as she may direct, on or before the 10th day of each month; the maintenance amount to be paid from the month of August last.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1