AJAIB KAUR Vs. UTTAM SINGH ROAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shrimati Ajaib Kaur appellant instituted a suit in forma pauperis against her husband S. Balbir Singh and her father-in-law S. Uttam Singh for the recovery of Rs. 5,400/-on account of maintenance for 6 years from 20-4-1946 to 19-41952 at the rate of Rs. 75/-per month, for fixation of future maintenance from the date of the suit at the rate of Rs. 75/-per month and for the return of the articles i.e. stridhan worth Rs. 4,600/-mentioned in a list attached to the plaint or in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 4,600/-on account of the value of the said stridhan. The grounds on which the claim was made is her maltreatment at the hands of the defendants. It is alleged that a few days after the marriage both the defendants, out of greed, began to pastier the plaintiff with the intention of compelling her to bring more money from her parents and suggested to her that unless she complied with their demand they were not willing to keep her in their house. It is further pleaded that when the defendants left her at her parents' house they said that if she came back she would be done to death. For these reasons, the plaintiff alleges, that it was not safe for her to live in her husband's house and that she is entitled to separate maintenance and residence.

(2.) With respect of stridhan it is averred in the plaint that at the time of the marriage the plaintiff's father had given by way of stridhan clothes, ornaments, utensils, wooden case etc., mentioned in the list attached to the plaint valued at about Rs. 4,000/-and a sum of Rs. 600/-in cash which were left in trust with the defendants and which they have refused to deliver to the plaintiff. In spite of the best efforts she has not been able to persuade the defendants to keep her in the house and that now she had not other alternative except to file the present suit to enforce her right Maintenance has benn claimed at the rate of Rs. 75/-per month. This suit was instituted in April 1952.

(3.) The defendants contested the plaintiff's claim and alleged that at the time of marriage the plaintiff stayed with the defendants only for 10 days and then she took away with her even all the ornaments and clothes which had been given to her by the defendants as marriage gifts. It is denied that the appellant's father gave her any ornaments at the time of the marriage or thereafter. The marriage admittedly took place sometime in December 1944. It is also pleaded that in the middle of 1945 she came and lived in the house of the defendants for 2 or 3 months when her father took her away with all the ornaments and clothes on the pretext that there was teej teuhar and that the girls wear ornaments and clothes on this occasion. Thereafter, it is pleaded by the defendants, the plaintiff did not come back to the defendants' house although repeated efforts were made to bring her from her parents' house. It is also alleged that the defendants took a Panchayat but the plaintiff refused to return on the pretext that she was much older than defendant No. 2 and that she was also not keeping good health. Right to maintenance was denied on the ground that she was staying away from her husband of her own accord. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues: