PREM PRATAP SINGH Vs. JAGAT PRATAP KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen out of a suit by a wife against her husband in which the main relief claimed was a decree for maintenance. The Court below has decreed the suit in part, and the defendant has appealed. The plaintiff has submitted to the decree.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent, Rani Jagat Pra. tap Kunwar, was a German girl, Mellita Franck by name, and a Roman Catholic Christian by religion, before her marriage with the defendant. She came out to India in December 1935 and was employed at a hotel, called Hakman's Hotel, at Mussoorie. There is nothing in the pleadings or in the evidence to show what her occupation was. The learned Judge below, however, states in his judgment that she was an "artist." It is possible that this observation of the learned Judge is based on some statement made by the counsel for the parties before him in the course of the trial. But it is not at all clear what sort of an "artist" she was. She was getting a salary of Rs. 1000 per month and was allowed free board and lodging. Out of the salary of Rs. 1000 she gave to her cousin RS. 300, in other words, the net amount which came to the plaintiff as her monthly salary during the time that she was in the service of the hotel was Rs. 700. The defendant met her at Mussoorie and on 22 August, 1936, the plaintiff was converted to Sikhism--in all likelihood that is the religion to which the defendant belongs--was apparently at that time given the name of Jagat Pratap Kunwar and was married to the defendant according to Sikh rites on that date at a small hill station, situated, between Mussoorie and Dehradun, called Rajpur. The plaintiff and the defendant thereafter lived together as husband and wife at Rajpur until November 1937 when the plaintiff went to Germany. According to the statement made by the plaintiff in the witness box, of which there is no contradiction, the defendant sent for plaintiff's mother from Germany and requested her to stay in India, but, as plaintiff's mother was not willing to do so as long as plaintiff's father was living in Germany, the defendant sent the plaintiff as well as her mother to Germany and asked them to bring plaintiff's father with them when they returned to India. The plaintiff further stated in the witness box that the defendant bought return tickets for her and her mother and gave them 3000 registered marks, which according to her statement, was the equivalent of ? 250, and ? 100 in travellers cheques. She also stated that the defendant wrote to the British Consul at Cologne requesting him to secure permission for the plaintiff's father to leave Germany and to come to India. The plaintiff further stated that the defendant asked her and her mother to bring the furniture which they had in Germany and that such furniture was brought out by them. These statements also have remained uncontradicted. The result was that the plaintiff as well as her father and mother came to India in March 1938 and brought with them whatever furniture they had in Germany.

(3.) The plaintiff's case was that on her return to India in March 1938 she noticed a change in the attitude of her husband, the defendant, towards her, that she was lodged, not in the house at Rajpur in which she had been living with her husband before she left for Germany, but in another house, belonging to her husband, at Dehradun and that the defendant not only ceased to live and cohabit with her but also ceased to maintain her. There was also an allegation in the plaint of cruelty and physical violence. The plaintiff claimed on these allegations that she was entitled to maintain a suit for maintenance against the defendant. The amount that she claimed was Rs. 1500 per month. It was further alleged that when the plaintiff left India for Germany in November 1937 she left the major portion of her jewellery with the defendant and that it had not been restored to her. She claimed a sum of Rs. 5000 on this account. She further asked for a decree for Rs. 6000 on account of past maintenance "from April 1938 to September 1938." We understand this to mean that she claimed the arrears at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month, for she alleged that the desertion took place and her cause of action arose in March 1938 and she commenced this action in October 1938. There were also a prayer that "the plaintiff be granted any other relief which the Court thinks fit and proper."