High CourtsDivision Bench(1943) 01 MAD CK 0028

Sadhu Suryanarayana vs Sadhu Lakshmi Sundaramma and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 7 January 1943 · Citation: AIR 1943 Mad 416 : (1944) ILR (Mad) 69 : (1943) 1 MLJ 179

HON’BLE JUDGES
Byers, 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 · 376 words

Byers, J.—In defence to an application for the enforcement of an order of maintenance against him in respect of his wife and his three

daughters, the petitioner pleaded that the eldest of the three daughters had been married and he objected to paying any maintenance for her

subsequent to the date of her marriage. The learned Magistrate held that the petitioner''s only remedy was to file an application u/s 489 of the

Criminal Procedure Code and to get the order varied in his favour. As he had failed to do so, the learned Magistrate declined to consider the

question and ordered maintenance to be paid in accordance with the terms of the pre-existing order.

2.

It was decided by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Shah Abu Ilyas v. Ulfat Bibi I.L.R.(1806) All. 50 that the '''' change in

circumstances "" referred to in Section 489 of the Code is a change in the pecuniary or other circumstances of the party paying or receiving the

allowance which would justify an increase or decrease of the amount of the monthly payment originally fixed and not a change in the status of the

parties which would entail a stoppage of the allowance. In that particular case the husband against whom enforcement of an order was sought had

set up the divorce of his wife as a defence. The same view was expressed by a single judge of this Court in the case of Mohamed Anser Sahib v.

Zubeda Bee (1933) M.W.N. 121 in which it was held that divorce was not a change in circumstances but a change in status. It follows, therefore,

that the view of the learned Magistrate that the petitioner''s only remedy was by way of an application u/s 489 of the Criminal Procedure Code is

erroneous. It was open to the petitioner to set up the marriage of his daughter as a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 488 (3) for failure

to comply with the order in so far as she was concerned.

3.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the order is set aside and the petition remanded to the lower Court for further disposal after considering

the plea of marriage set up by the petitioner.