L. RAM SARUP AGGARWAL Vs. DEV KUMARI W/O L. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge of Ludhiana decreeing to the plaintiff, the wife, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40 a month as from 8th July 1943 because of the continued desertion by the husband of the wife. Against this decree, the plaintiff also has cross -objected and claimed that she should be paid maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 a month from 1939.

(2.) SHRIMATI Dev Kumari, plaintiff, was married at Ludhiana to Ram Sarup, defendant, of Jullundur in February 1939. In her plaint she alleged that she lived with her husband after her marriage, but the husband's father, Ghasitu Ram, made improper overtures to her. The two over -acts complained of by the wife (but not in the plaint) are : (1) that her father -in -law asked her to massage him; and (2) on another occasion he asked her to remove her veil and show her face to him. Of this she made a complaint to her husband who resented this allegation and ill -treated her by giving her beating and "subjecting her to various troubles." In about June 1939, the defendant was transferred to Thal in the district of Kohat and she was sent away to her parents' house. During his absence, in Kohat, it is alleged, he never wrote to her in spite of the fact that she sent several letters to him including a registered letter. And during all this period she was not maintained by him. In 1942, an attempt was made by her and her relatives to bring about rapprochement between the plaintiff and the defendant, but this did not succeed, and when later on the husband tried to get married again she along with some friends of the family again went to the defendant at Delhi and tried to bring about conciliation. Her brother then left her at her husband's house at Delhi, but the husband ill -treated her and sent her back soon. She claims Rs. 75 per mensem as maintenance because the husband is getting a salary of Rs. 200 a month.

(3.) THIS suit was brought on 24th August 1944, and in February 1945, the defendant tried to have the suit stayed under the Soldiers' Litigation Act, but in this he did not succeed.