SASHIMUKHI DASIANI Vs. BRUNDABAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in a suit for maintenance files this appeal against the judgment and decree of Sri B. Misra, Additional Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, dismissing her suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for maintenance against her husband defendant No. 1 and father-in-law defendant No. 4 defendants 2 and 3 being the sons of defendant no. 1 by a second wife. The plaintiff, according to her case, married defendant No. 1 in the year 1936. The Bandapana or nuptial marriage was in 1938 and since that time she lived as the wife of defendant No. 1 in. his house, which jointly belongs to the defendants. Her case in the plaint is that Defendants 1 and 4 ill-treated her since some time after the Bandapana and ultimately took off all the ornaments from her person and drove her out of the house on 28-9-41. No details of the ill-treatment were given in the plaint, but it is only stated that the ill-treatment meted out to the plaintiff went up to such a high pitch that her life was in danger she also alleged that not being satisfied with the ill-treatment meted out, they also deserted her for ever refusing to keep her and maintain her in spite of her repeated entreaties, and of her relations and other respectable gentlemen. Defendant No. 1, according to the plaint allegations, married another wife in the summer of 1942 and has got two sons defendants 2 and 3 through her. She further alleged that on the ground of cruelty and desertion she is entitled to maintenance; and that the family derives an annual income of Rs. 7200/-as detailed in Schedule E, the properties having been described in schedules A, B, C and D. She claimed maintenance at the rate of 15 pastamas of fine rice and 15 pastamas of common rice and Rs. 120/- per year towards residence. She also claimed arrear maintenance from 29-9-41 for 6 years 5 1/2 months at the same rate. The suit was filed on 8-3-48. She also claimed a charge on the properties described in schedules A, B, G and D for her maintenance.

(3.) ALL the four defendants filed a_ common written statement denying the material plaint allegations. They admitted that the plaintiff lived in their house after her bandapana, but denied any ill-treatment to her, They also denied any respectable person on the part of the plaintiff entreating them to take her back or to maintain her. They put forward a positive case that some time in the year 1941 she became pregnant, went to her father's place in Saranda about 8 miles from the place of the defendants; and that she gave birth to a child after four or five months, the child having died immediately alter the birth. They stated that since then she never came back to their place for reasons best known to herself although they sent information again and again to her and her relations and they refused to send her in spite of their requests: and that defendant No. 1 therefore, having no other alternative married again and the plaintiff, as the defendants alleged in the written statement, practically refused conjugal relationship with him. They alleged that they were willing to maintain her if she returned to their house and resumed conjugal relationship with defendant No. 1. They denied the extent of family properties as stated by the plaintiff. They stated that the annual income was only 50 purugo of paddy and Rs. 100/-from other crops. They therefore, stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to any maintenance past or future if she lived separately.