G. Benbow Vs. W. Benbow

G. Benbow vs W. Benbow

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided May 10, 1897

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/856992

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/856992
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Ghose and ;Wilkins, JJ.
Decided On: May 10, 1897
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Maintenance, order of Criminal Court as to - Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1882), Sections 488 and 177--Complaint by a wife against her husband for maintenance--Issue of summons--Jurisdiction of Presidency Magistrate. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

G. Benbow

Respondent

W. Benbow

Legal References

Reported In: (1897)ILR24Cal638

Excerpt

maintenance, order of criminal court as to - criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), sections 488 and 177--complaint by a wife against her husband for maintenance--issue of summons--jurisdiction of presidency magistrate. - ghose and wilkins, jj.1. we think that the presidency magistrate has taken a right view in the matter. 'it is the duty of the woman,' as observed by west, j., in in re the petition of fakrudin i.l.r. 9 bom., 40, 'to reside with her husband, and it is her co-relative right to be maintained by him under his roof.' and when the husband fails in his duty, the proper court to take cognizance of the complaint of the wife is the court within the jurisdiction of which he may reside. the language of section 488 of the code of criminal procedure itself favours this view; and it seems to us that, if the principle which underlies section 177 of the code may be applied to this case, the complaint should be enquired into by the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the husband neglected or refused to maintain his wife. let the record be sent back with this expression of our opinion.

Full Judgment

Ghose and Wilkins, JJ.

1. We think that the Presidency Magistrate has taken a right view in the matter. 'It is the duty of the woman,' as observed by West, J., in In re the Petition of Fakrudin I.L.R. 9 Bom., 40, 'to reside with her husband, and it is her co-relative right to be maintained by him under his roof.' And when the husband fails in his duty, the proper Court to take cognizance of the complaint of the wife is the Court within the jurisdiction of which he may reside. The language of Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself favours this view; and it seems to us that, if the principle which underlies Section 177 of the Code may be applied to this case, the complaint should be enquired into by the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the husband neglected or refused to maintain his wife. Let the record be sent back with this expression of our opinion.

Same Parties G. Benbow vs W. Benbow Same Subject Civil Same Judge Ghose and ;Wilkins, JJ.

Civil