SHAMRAO Vs. CHANDRABHAGABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The facts of the case out of which this first appeal has arisen are shortly these: The plaintiff's husband Purushottamrao, ho died in 1917, as a step-brother of the defendants and formed a joint Hindu family with them. Up to 1922 the plaintiff stayed on with the defendants hen difference arose and she took up her residence with her brother ho has since been maintaining her. She, therefore, brought the suit in the lower Court claiming Bs. 50 a month as a suitable maintenance allowance and arrears for three years at this rate. She put do n the family income at Bs. 10,000. In reply the defendants stated that the annual income from all sources as not more than Rs. 1,500 and as there ere five members to support the plaintiff should not be allowed more than Rs. 100 a year if she did not care to stay with the defendants.

(2.) THE lower Court in a very careful judgment revieed all the evidence critically and came to the conclusion that the annual net income from the fields as Rs. 1,250, that from Deshmukhi Rs. 267 and from Pat aripan Rs. 198 total Rs. 1,665. Making allowance for everything learned Subordinate Judge fixed Rs.20 a month as a suitable maintenance allowance to the plaintiff in future and ordered three years' arrears to be paid to her at this rate.

(3.) THE next contention advanced is that since the plaintiff left the defendant's house of her o n free ill and accord wwithout any good reason she is not entitled to claim any arrears of maintenance more particularly hen there is no evidence that any notice of demand as ever given by her to the defendants. Mr. Fulay, how appeared for the plaintiff-respondent states that since this question of ant of notice as not raised by the defendants in their pleadings the plaintiff had no opportunity to plead and prove that demand as in fact made. Under these circumstances I remand the case to the lower Court for taking pleadings and evidence on the point of notice of demand and disposal of the question of arrears afresh in the light of fresh findings. Since there has been a divided success in this Court the costs of this appeal ill be borne by the parties as incurred by them.