Singh v Singh (C.C. No. 13-35.)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The court held that an action for harbouring a wife lies under Hindu Law, which does not diverge significantly from English law on this point. A condition precedent to such an action is notice by the husband to the alleged harbourer not to continue harbouring the wife. Where the defendant denies receiving such notice, this becomes a vital issue requiring proof at trial. The plaintiff's submission that the defence admitted harbouring and left only damages in issue was rejected.
Outcome
Matter to proceed to full hearing on all issues including whether notice was given
Facts
The plaintiff husband sued the defendant for damages of Sh. 3,000, alleging the defendant enticed, procured and harboured the plaintiff's wife. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff's wife had been living in his house and working as his housekeeper. The plaintiff's counsel submitted that this admission constituted harbouring in law and that only the quantum of damages remained in issue. The defendant's counsel contended that as this was a Hindu marriage between Sikhs, English law principles did not apply. The defence specifically denied any demand by the husband and refusal by the defendant to deliver up the wife.
Issues
- Whether an action for harbouring a wife lies under Hindu Law.
- Whether notice to the alleged harbourer is a condition precedent to an action for harbouring.
- Whether the defence discloses no answer to the claim such that only quantum of damages remains in issue.
Orders
- Plaintiff's submission that the defence discloses no answer to harbouring rejected.
- Matter to proceed to hearing in the ordinary way.
- Defendant's application to amend defence to plead ill-treatment refused as premature.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (4)
- Yamunabai v Narayan Moteshvar Pendse (1 Born. 164)
- Winsmore v Greenback (Willes 577)
- Place v Searle [1932] 2 KB 497
- Philp v Squire (Peake 114)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.