High CourtsDivision Bench(1947) 04 MAD CK 0011

Nookala Appayyamma vs Nookala Subba Rao

Madras High Court · Decided on 11 April 1947 · Citation: (1947) 60 LW 573 : (1947) 2 MLJ 288

HON’BLE JUDGES
Yahya Ali, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 329 words

Yahya Ali, J.—The petitioner was awarded separate maintenance in 1924. Subsequently that order was cancelled on the application of her

husband, the respondent, that he was willing to take her back ; but the petitioner refused to live with him and consequently the Additional First

Class Magistrate, Cocanada, has cancelled the order granting maintenance. The first objection taken is that the original order having been passed

by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cocanada, the Additional First Class Magistrate who cancelled it in 1945 could not do so as there was a

Magistrate bearing the designation '' Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cocanada.'' It is contended that the Additional First Class Magistrate was not the

successor of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but it would appear that the Additional First Class Magistrate has been invested with powers to

entertain applications u/s 488, Criminal Procedure Code, and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cocanada, has no jurisdiction to try maintenance

cases. It would also appear that the application for cancellation of the order granting maintenance was presented to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate

and that as he had no jurisdiction to entertain it, he forwarded it to the Court having jurisdiction, viz., the Court of the Additional First Class

Magistrate, Cocanada. The objection is overruled.

2.

On the merits there can be no doubt that all that happened before 1924 could not be pleaded as a valid defence in 1945. So long as the

husband and wife agreed to live separately it was a different matter. It is always open to the husband to demand the wife''s company and to insist

that she should come and live with him. The only plea upon which she can resist the demand is by showing that the husband was subjecting her to a

course of cruelty. There is no such plea put forward except that had transpired prior to 1924. I agree with the Additional First Class Magistrate

that the petitioner has no right to separate maintenance in these circumstances.

3.

The petition is dismissed.