Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 2611 (MAD)

Rathina Thevar v. Mangalam

1999-11-30

BASHEER AHMED SAYEED

body1999
Judgment The husband is the appellant. He filed an application for divorce under section 5(1) (b) of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act. The short ground on which the petition was filed was that the respondent had become the concubine of another person. The learned Subordinate Judge of Tanjore held there was only a stray act of the wife living together with another man as husband and wife and that would not constitute concubinage. He relied on the decisions in Ambal Bagyam v. Ramayya Padayachi1 and Mahalingam Pillai v, Amsavalli2, which have very succinctly described what concubinage is. The earlier decision has since been confirmed by a Bench in Ramayya Padayachi v. Ambal Bagyam3. That decision also refers to a decision of the Andhra High Court in Subbaramiah v. Venkatasubbamma4. The facts of this case are the same as the facts in those reported cases. Such being the case, the ratio decidendi of these decisions would apply to this case. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merits, and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P.R.N. ----- Appeal dismissed.