Report No. 132
3.12. Third problem.-
So also there is no good reason to once again reopen at the stage of recovery the controversy as to whether or not the wife is entitled to refuse to live with the husband. This question would have been gone into at the stage when the right to maintenance was determined on merits. At the subsequent stage of recovery, no useful purpose would be served by requiring that if the husband makes an offer that he is prepared to maintain her on the condition of her living with him, the entire controversy must be re-opened.
The existence of this provision serves no better purpose than providing a weapon of harassment to the errant husband in as much as a husband can always make an application just in order to tire out the wronged wife who has won a decision in her favour after a prolonged, costly and unequal battle. The right to maintenance already determined by the court should not again be permitted to be jeopardised by enabling the husband to make such an offer giving rise to a further proceeding and further delay during which period the husband may well refrain from honouring the obligation to pay the allowance, as ordered earlier. This proviso (along with the Explanation), therefore, deserves to be deleted altogether.