<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1955 (3) TMI 53 - TRAVANCORE-COCHIN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284855</link>
    <description>The court held that a Christian wife is entitled to separate maintenance from her husband under the personal law of Christians. The wife was justified in refusing to live with her husband due to habitual cruelty, entitling her to maintenance. The court found the maintenance rate of Rs. 100 per year for the wife reasonable. The second defendant was not liable for the plaintiffs&#039; costs as their claim against him was disallowed. The decree was modified, disallowing maintenance and costs for the second plaintiff, and exempting the second defendant from liability for costs. The first plaintiff was confirmed to receive maintenance at the specified rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:43:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597190" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (3) TMI 53 - TRAVANCORE-COCHIN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284855</link>
      <description>The court held that a Christian wife is entitled to separate maintenance from her husband under the personal law of Christians. The wife was justified in refusing to live with her husband due to habitual cruelty, entitling her to maintenance. The court found the maintenance rate of Rs. 100 per year for the wife reasonable. The second defendant was not liable for the plaintiffs&#039; costs as their claim against him was disallowed. The decree was modified, disallowing maintenance and costs for the second plaintiff, and exempting the second defendant from liability for costs. The first plaintiff was confirmed to receive maintenance at the specified rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284855</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>