Right to maintenance is statutory right of Wife,contributory negligence cannot be a relevant consideration to throw the applicant's case out of Court.
As such the applicant had a right under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and also Under Section 488 of the Cr. P. C. to claim maintenance and she has chosen to enforce her right under this Act. The fact as to whether the second marriage was valid or void or voidable matters little and does not affect her right Under Section 488 as it speaks about contracting a marriage valid or otherwise, If the marriage is void the act in question will tantamount to keeping a mistress. In any view of the matter the husband has contracted a second marriage, has failed and neglected to maintain the applicant and had sufficient means and as such was liable Under Section 488 of the Code. Under these circumstances, I hold that the applicant is entitled to claim and get her maintenance after the second marriage,
The learned Sessions Judge has held that the second marriage might have been due to the act of refusal of the applicant to live with her husband and as, such she could not claim any maintenance. In the instant case the applicant has left In November-December, 1971 and the second marriage was contracted In tide month of March, 1972, The span of absence is so short that no force or compulsion for the second marriage can even be inferred. Apart from this the claim of the applicant is neither contractual nor tortious. It is her statutory right and contributory negligence cannot be a relevant consideration to throw the applicant's case out of Court. I hold that there was no proved compelling circumstance for the second marriage or the same can be a relevant consideration to deprive the applicant to enforce her statutory right Under Section 488 of the Code.. Apart from that what the husband did was a penal act violative of Section 494 I. P. C., an offence relating to marriage, marrying again during the life of the wifeTherefore, the second marriage was a void and illegal marriage Under Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. At any rate the husband took a woman and her status was not that of a legally married
The learned Sessions Judge has held that the second marriage might have been due to the act of refusal of the applicant to live with her husband and as, such she could not claim any maintenance. In the instant case the applicant has left In November-December, 1971 and the second marriage was contracted In tide month of March, 1972, The span of absence is so short that no force or compulsion for the second marriage can even be inferred. Apart from this the claim of the applicant is neither contractual nor tortious. It is her statutory right and contributory negligence cannot be a relevant consideration to throw the applicant's case out of Court. I hold that there was no proved compelling circumstance for the second marriage or the same can be a relevant consideration to deprive the applicant to enforce her statutory right Under Section 488 of the Code.. Apart from that what the husband did was a penal act violative of Section 494 I. P. C., an offence relating to marriage, marrying again during the life of the wifeTherefore, the second marriage was a void and illegal marriage Under Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. At any rate the husband took a woman and her status was not that of a legally married
