MANOHARI Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS was an appeal by Mst. Manohari to the Ijlas-i-khas of the former State of Bikaner and has come to us in view of the provisions of Ordinances 40 of 1949 and 12 of 1950.

(2.) THE facts may be narrated briefly. Mst. Manohari was married to Ramchandra. She brought a suit for maintenance in June 1942 alleging that she had been turned out by her husband who had married again. She, therefore, prayed for maintenance from her husband. She had also impleaded her husband's brother Birbal and wanted maintenance from him as well. THEre was also an allegation that certain ornaments of her had been entrusted to Birbal and that she should be given a decree for those ornaments. So far, however, as Birbal is concerned, the District Judge of Charu, who tried the suit, as well as the High Court of the former State of Bikaner came to the conclusion that no ornaments had been entrusted to Birbal and that Birbal was not in any case responsible for giving any maintenance to Mst. Manohari. So the suit against Birbal was dismissed. Mst; Manohari has not filed any appeal against that part of the decree and we need not consider it any further.