Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1981CriLJ267
A.S. Anand, J. 1. An interesting, though an abstract, question of law that has been referred for decision by a learned single Judge is: Whether a wife in terms of first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 488 Cr. P.C. can refuse to live with her husband and claim separate maintenance from him only on the ground that he has contracted a second marriage As is apparent from the order of reference, the necessity for making the reference arose because of divergence of judicial opinion on the question. Some courts have held that the taking of the second wife or keeping of a mistress by the husband is by itself not sufficient for passing an order of maintenance against the husband, unless it is proved that the husband has been guilty of neglect or refusal to maintain his wife. See Ishar v. Soma Devi AIR 1959 Punj 295 : 1959 Cri LJ 76; Bela Rani v. Bhupal Chandra : AIR1956Cal134 and Iqbalunnisa Begum v. Habib Pasha : AIR1961AP445 in this connection.2. A contrary view has been taken in some c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1981J& K30
Kotwal, J.1. This appeal raises an important question of interpretation of Order 41, Rule 17 (1), C. P. C. which arises in the following circumstances : 2. The appellants filed an appeal against a judgment and decree of District Judge, Bhadarwah, which in their absence, as well as in the absence of their counsel, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, on merits, on 20-12-1974. Application under Order 41, Rule 19 for its re-admission was also dismissed by him on 14-3-1975 by a brief order which runs as under :--'The application is dismissed as no ground for admitting the same is made out.'The appellants then moved an application for leave to file an appeal against the said order dated 14-3-1975, which was granted. Hence the appeal.3. Mr. Parihar's contention in the appeal is twofold. According to him, the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits in the absence of the appellants, or their counsel, as such, order dated 20-12-1974, even if it ...
Tag this Judgment!