TMI Blog1910 (5) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars the suit for restitution if there has been a demand and refusal more than two years before. The decisions of this Court and of the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts are clear [Saravanai Perumal Pillai v. Poovayi (1905) I.L.R. 28 Mad. 436, Dhanjibhoy Bomanji v. Hirabai (1901) I.L.R. 25 Bom. 644, Asirunnessa Khatun v. Buzloo Meah (1907) I.L.R. 34 Calc. 79.] 2. But in this case a suit was brough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere alleged that subsequent to the agreement there has been a demand and refusal. It is true the wife did not return to conjugal life. But we should be strict in applying Article 35 according to the letter. It may be worthy of note having regard to the difference of opinion between the Allahabad High Court and the other Indian High Courts as to the applicability of the article to Hindus and Muhamm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations is the Hindu Law (see Section 16 of Madras Act; III of 1873). It may be doubted whether under that law any agreement between husband and wife to live apart from each other is valid. It may well be deemed to be forbidden by the Hindu Law. The authorities on the subject are set out and discussed in considerable detail by Mr. Justice GHOSE in Tekait Mon Mohini Jemadai v. Basanta Kumar Singh (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Wilson 9 E.R. 870 that an agreement for a present separation was enforceable. The decisions in Marshall v. Marshall (1879)5 P.D. 19, Clark v. Clark (1885) 10 P.D. 188, Besant v. Wood (1879) 12 Ch. D. 605 on which Mr. Venkatrama Sastri relied are not cases of agreement for a future separation like the present case. The English cases are fully discussed by Mr. Justice Batchelor in the Bombay cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
