MANDY MATHAR SAHIB Vs. BIJAN BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff 1 was married by the defendant in 1904. He had two children by her, who lived until 1921; differences having arisen between plaintiff 1 and the defendant, the defendant divorced plaintiff 1 in February 1920. Between 1913 and 1920 plaintiff 1 and her two children were living separately from the defendant.

(2.) On the allegation that plaintiff 1 maintained herself and her two children out of the money borrowed from her brother-in-law plaintiff 2, she filed the original suit, making her brother-in- law plaintiff 2, to recover Rs. 1,244 from the defendant, being money borrowed for the maintenance of herself and the two children aforesaid; the amount is alleged to have been borrowed between May 1917 a February, 1920, and the suit was filed on 8 April 1922. The defendant denied his liability. He also denied plaintiff 1's right to pledge the credit of the defendant and alleged that there was no lawful necessity to do so. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable at law and that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against him.

(3.) This is an unfortunate case; plaintiff 1 a Mahomedan lady had not proper legal advice in connexion with her suit. This is clear from the proceedings in the case. The first Court gave the plaintiffs a decree as sued for, finding that the defendant was a rich man with an annual income of about Rs. 3,000 and that plaintiff 1's claim of Rs. 1,244 for maintenance of herself and her two children for nearly 34 months was proper in the circumstances. On appeal before the lower appellate Court the learned District Judge stated that it was admitted that under the Mahomadan Law a wife is not entitled to past maintenance unless the claim is based on a specific agreement and as no such specific agreement is set up in the present suit, the plaintiff 1 had no right to sue and this is conceded by the learned advocate for the plaintiffs.