- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Addoyto Chunder Dass v. Woojan Beebee .
Factual and Procedural Background
The suit was brought by Woojan Beebee, a Mahomedan woman and wife of Jodu Nasaya, against Addoyto Chunder Dass, a Hindu of the Rajbunsi caste. She sought a declaration of right to recover Rs. 24 per annum for maintenance of a child alleged to have been begotten by the defendant. The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it would not lie. However, the lower Appellate Court held that the suit could be maintained and remanded it to the lower Court for trial. The present appeal challenges the Appellate Court’s order of remand.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a Mahomedan woman, whose husband is still living, can maintain a civil suit against a Hindu man for maintenance of a child born out of unlawful intercourse.
- Whether the provisions of section 536 of the Criminal Procedure Code exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain such a suit.
- Whether Hindu law principles entitle an illegitimate child to claim maintenance from the father in circumstances involving parties of different religions and races.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the suit and the applicability of Hindu law and section 536 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It noted that under Hindu law, even an illegitimate child may claim maintenance from the father, but this principle was found inapplicable to the present case involving a Mahomedan woman suing a Hindu man while her lawful husband is still living. The Court expressed doubt about the Civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate on paternity once the Magistrate has ruled under section 536. It distinguished this case from others where offspring of a female servant by the head male member of a family were entitled to maintenance. The Court reasoned that a suit for maintenance in these circumstances—unlawful intercourse between persons of different religions and races—is not maintainable in a Civil Court. The absence of authoritative decisions supporting the maintainability of such a suit further reinforced the Court's conclusion. Consequently, the Court set aside the Appellate Court’s order remanding the case and restored the original dismissal with costs.
Holding and Implications
The Court held that the suit for maintenance by a Mahomedan woman against a Hindu man for a child born out of unlawful intercourse is not maintainable in a Civil Court.
The direct effect of this decision is to dismiss the suit and restore the original order of the first Court, denying maintenance. No new precedent was established beyond confirming the inapplicability of Hindu law maintenance principles and Civil Court jurisdiction in such inter-religious and unlawful intercourse contexts involving a living husband.
The facts sufficiently appear from the judgments of the Court (1) which were as follows:—
Morris, J.:— This was a suit brought by a Mahomedan woman, one Woojan Beebee, wife of Jodu Nasaya, against a Hindu Addoyto Chunder Dass, by caste a Rajbunsi, for a declaration of right to recover Rs. 24 per annum for maintenance of a child begotten by him.
The first Court held that the suit would not lie, and dismissal the suit; but in appeal the lower Appellate Court was of opinion that the suit could be maintained, and remanded it to the lower Court for trial. Against this order the present appeal is preferred.
The ground taken by the lower Court is that, “under the Hindu Law even an illegitimate child is entitled to claim maintenance from his father, and I am not therefore prepared to think that the provisions of section 536 of Act X of 1872, can consistently deprive the remedy, which might otherwise be attained by recourse to a Civil Court.”
It should be noticed that in the plaint the plaintiff states that she had recourse to the Magistrate under section 536 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the Magistrate disallowed maintenance on the ground that it had not been proved that the defendant was the father of the child. Without entering into the question whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to determine a point which has already been settled by the Magistrate under section 536 as to the paternity of the child, I think that a suit, such as this is, will not lie. The rule of Hindu Law referred to is not applicable to the circumstances of this case. It differs entirely from the case of the offspring of a female servant by the head male member of a family being entitled to maintenance. This is a case of a Mahomedan woman, whose husband is still living, suing a man of a different race for maintenance on account of the offspring of their unlawful intercourse. In my opinion a suit of this kind cannot be maintained in a Civil Court.
Therefore, the order of remand of the lower Court will be set aside, and the order of the first Court restored with costs.
White, J.:— This is a suit of an entirely novel character, being brought by a Mussulmani who describes herself as the wife of a living Mahomedan, against a Hindu whom she alleges to be father of a child of which she is the mother. The plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant Rs. 2 a month as and for the maintenance of the child. The first Court has in substance held that the suit will not lie. The lower Appellate Court considers that it will lie, and has remanded the case to the first Court in order to try the issue whether the defendant is really the father of the child and, if so, whether he is liable to be sued by the plaintiff for maintenance for the child.
No authority has been cited, either based on English or on Hindu Law, shewing that a suit of this character will lie. On the other hand, decisions of this Court have been referred to by the pleader for the appellant which, though not directly in point, are adverse to the maintenance of such a suit.
I agree, therefore, with my brother Morris that in the present state of the authorities the first Court was right in holding that the suit was not maintainable, and that the order of remand made by the lower Appellate Court should be reversed.
Alert