(1.) The suit, which has led to this appeal, was brought by the appellant, Bai Kashi, for arrears of maintenance against Mansukh, alleging that she was his natra wife, by whom he had several children, but that he had expelled her from his house in 1901 and had refused to maintain her.
(2.) The Subordinate Judge, First Class, at Ahmedabad, who tried the suit, has found upon the evidence that the appellant Bai Kashi, was a Brahmin widow, when she married the respondent Mansukh, a Shudra by caste, and that some time after marriage, both of them became converts to Christianity. The principal issue raised at the trial was whether the marri age was legal and valid. The Subordinate Judge found in the negative upon that issue, and, finding on some of the subsidiary issues also against the appellant, he has dismissed the suit.
(3.) The Subordinate Judge s finding upon the evidence that the parties as a fact married according to the rites of Hindus, that at the time of marriage the appellant was a Brahmin widow, aged sixteen, and the respondent a Shudra, that thereafter they lived as wife and husband, having several children, both before and after their conversion to Christianity, has not been assailed before us by the respondent. These facts found by the Subordinate Judge are amply borne out by the evidence. Three questions of law have been argued in support of the appeal. They are, first, is the marriage of a Brahmin woman with a man of the Shudra caste, such as the marriage in dispute was, legal and valid, according to Hindu Law? Secondly, if it is not legal and valid, is the appellant entitled to maintenance as at all events the kept mistress of the respondent under that law? Thirdly, is the respondent estopped from maintaining that the appellant is not his lawfully married wife and as such is not entitled to maintenance?