MANIKYA BAI Vs. VENKITESWARA KINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and memorandum of cross objections arise from the decision of the Temporary Additional District Judge of Anjikaimal in O.S. No. 88 of 1120 M.E. on the file of his court. The plaintiff in the suit is the wife of the defendant. They belong to the Gowda Saraswath Community the members of which are governed by Hindu Law. The parties quarrelled and the husband admittedly removed the thali from the neck of the wife and drove her out of his house. This was on 14.4.1120. On the day following he married another woman. The first wife who was discarded thereupon filed the suit from which this appeal arises claiming separate maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. She also claimed refund of Rs. 301 given as dowry at or before her marriage and return of gold ornaments weighing 120 sovereigns. The Trial Court held that the allegations of cruelty were proved and that the wife had made out a case for separate residence and maintenance. The suit was accordingly decreed for refund of Rs. 301 negativing the defendant's contention that the amount was only Rs. 150 and for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15 per month with proportionate costs. The claim for the return of the jewels was disallowed. The court below also refused to create a charge on the properties of the defendant which are described in the schedule to the plaint in respect of the maintenance decreed.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed this appeal from the refusal of the court below to make the decree a charge on the properties of the defendant. The defendant has filed a memorandum of cross objections in respect of the dowry which according to him, was only Rs. 150 and not Rs. 301, as also in respect of the order for costs.

(3.) The memorandum of cross objections can be easily disposed of. The Trial Court believed the witnesses for the plaintiff who swore to the fact that Rs. 301 was paid as dowry, especially in view of Ext. II which showed that the plaintiff's brothers had taken a loan of Rs. 380 a few weeks before the wedding. The oral evidence of witnesses was read out to us at the hearing of the appeal. This supports the finding of the Trial Court which does not, therefore, call for interference. The memorandum of cross objections must in the circumstances, be dismissed with costs.