Ponnayee Vs. Periya Mooppan

Ponnayee vs Periya Mooppan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 05, 1908

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/774649

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/774649
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Feb 05, 1908
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ponnayee

Respondent

Periya Mooppan

Legal References

Cases Referred: Gantapalli Appalamma v. Gantapalli Yellayya. I.L.R.
Reported In: (1908)18MLJ150

Excerpt

- order1. we are not prepared to say that the view taken by the deputy magistrate as to the construction of section 488, criminal procedure code, is wrong. we think that the use of the word 'may' in that section as distinguished from 'shall' shows that the magistrate has a discretion to decide in what cases the award of maintenance may properly be made. no doubt, the discretion must be exercised judicially and reasonably, not capriciously. this was the view taken by benson j. in the case of gantapalli appalamma v. gantapalli yellayya. i.l.r. (1897) m. 470.2. in the present case the deputy magistrate did not refuse to award maintenance, because the petitioner was 'living in adultery,' but because she had been guilty of adultery with a low caste man, which led to her expulsion from caste, and thus as we take it, rendered it, in effect, impossible for her to live with him without himself losing the society of his fellow caste-men. we are not prepared to say that in these circumstances the deputy magistrate was wrong in refusing to award her maintenance.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. We are not prepared to say that the view taken by the Deputy Magistrate as to the construction of Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, is wrong. We think that the use of the word 'may' in that section as distinguished from 'shall' shows that the magistrate has a discretion to decide in what cases the award of maintenance may properly be made. No doubt, the discretion must be exercised judicially and reasonably, not capriciously. This was the view taken by Benson J. in the case of Gantapalli Appalamma v. Gantapalli Yellayya. I.L.R. (1897) M. 470.

2. In the present case the Deputy Magistrate did not refuse to award maintenance, because the petitioner was 'living in adultery,' but because she had been guilty of adultery with a low caste man, which led to her expulsion from caste, and thus as we take it, rendered it, in effect, impossible for her to live with him without himself losing the society of his fellow caste-men. We are not prepared to say that in these circumstances the Deputy Magistrate was wrong in refusing to award her maintenance.

Same Parties Ponnayee vs Periya Mooppan Same Subject Criminal

Criminal