T.R. RATNAVELU MUDALIAR Vs. KAMALABAI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the order made in review by our learned brother, Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in an Application made in C.S. Nos. 156 and 531 of 1949 by the wife, plaintiff in the latter suit.

(2.) THE present appellant and the respondent were married on 16th June, 1948. They lived together for about 20 days, when misunderstandings arose due to the interference of the proverbial mother -in -law. Allegations were then made against the husband of legal cruelty to the wife and a suit was filed namely, C.S. No. 531 of 1949 for separate maintenance and for return of jewels and clothes, etc., which were given to the wife at the time of the marriage and which she was entitled to get back from her husband. This appears to be a counterblast to the suit filed by the husband, namely, C.S. No. 156 of 1949 asking for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife.

(3.) IT transpires, however, that in the application filed by the respondent for amending the decree there was a prayer that since the appellant did not return the particular jewel, namely, a gold chain worth about 16 sovereigns, he should be directed to do so by the Court. The learned Judge expressed that such a thing was not possible in an application for amendment of the decree, and that, if anything, an application to this effect could be made by way of a review. Taking a hint from this dictum, the present respondent filed an application for review of the decree in the said two suits. That application was strongly resisted by the present appellant on various grounds, the import of which was that it was barred by limitation and that a review application did not lie in the circumstances of the case. The learned Judge, however, excused the delay of nearly 2½ years in filing the review application and granted the prayer of the respondent in his order. It is this order in review that is now under appeal by the appellant before us.