Placed in such circumstances, even if she wanted, helpless as she was, she could not have been able to contest the suit for want of money and ill health. A decision of the Karnataka High Court in K. Narayan Rao v. Bhagyalakshmi 1984 Cri LJ 276 (supra) was relied by the trial Court. In that case the wife was living in Udipi Taluqa of Karnataka, while the husband who was employed in a Spinning Mill in Salem district Tamil Nadu, obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights from the District Judge, Salem. The learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mst. Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd. Ibrahim 1981 Cri LJ 754 (supra) held "that the two proceedings, one Under Section 125 and the other under the respective Personal Law of the spouses operate in different spheres, though in a very limited area they do overlap. Generally they are intended to serve different purposes. The remedy Under Section 125 is purely a discretionary one. It is not so, to that extent, under the Personal Law. The aim and object of this provision (S. 125) and other provisions in Chap. IX of the Code is to help the weaker of the two to obtain assistance of the Court in getting maintenance, Discarded or helpless wives, deserted children and destitute parents can get much relief by invoking Section 125. The provisions may not be inconsistent with other parallel Acts in so far as maintenance is concerned, but the section undoubtedly excludes to some extent the application of any other Act. At the same time, it cannot be said that the personal law of the parties is completely excluded for all purposes. For instance, where the validity of a marriage or mode of divorce or cessation of marriage under the personal law of a party is concerned, that would have to be determined according to the said personal law. Thus, the exclusion by Section 488(125)extends only to the quantum of the maintenance and the circumstances under which it would be granted.”
