A wife who has left her husband without sufficient excuse can claim maintenance under S. 18(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, if her husband has any other wife living, and her right to maintenance is only suspended, not forfeited, by her abandonment of the husband.

CHANDRA REDDY, J. : -

The plaintiff in O. S. 142/50 and defendant in O. S. 22 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Kakinada. is the appellant in both the appeals. The plaintiff in O. S. 142/ 1950 laid an action against her husband for recovery of maintenance, future at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per year and past at Rs. 2000/- per year for nine years, jewels weighing 50 tolas of gold and valued at Rs. 5000/- and for an account of her "Pasupu kumkuma" (pin-money) entrusted to her husband by her father after the marriage and for other incidental reliefs.

It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant induced the plaintiffs parents in December 1927 to give her in marriage to him on the representation that he had left off his first wife who was unfit for marital life, being sick, that they lived happily for some years and later on he brought back his first wife in breach of this assurance and began to neglect and ill-treat the plaintiff and ultimately drove her out of the house in the year 1940 after forcibly removing a gold chain and bangles from her which were presented to her by her parents at the time of her marriage.

The next day after the marriage, her father paid into the hands of the 1st defendant Rs. 8000/-by way of Pasupu Kumkum (Pin-money) for her with instructions to improve it and hand it over to her whenever so desired by her. The defendant failed to pay her this amount also with interest accruing thereon. The defendant in his written statement denied all these averments and his liability in regard to any of the heads and stated that the plaintiff left his house in his absence as he did not agree to take in adoption her sisters son whom she was bringing up for some time.

2. The defence prevailed with the trial court and all the issues were decided against the plaintiff. It preferred to believe the defence witnesses to those of the plaintiff, the oral evidence for the plaintiff being characterized as unsatisfactory and unreliable. He accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs suit and decreed the suit brought by the husband, the present defendant, for restitution of conjugal rights winch has given rise to No. 855 of 1953.

3-10. Aggrieved by these decrees, the wife has filed these appeals. In these appeals, all the conclusions of the Subordinate Judge are challenged. (After discussing the evidence, his Lordship, agreeing with the trial court, held that the story regarding the agreement to abandon the first wife and of ill-treatment and desertion was false, that both the wives lived amicably with the defendant till plaintiff left him for the reasons mentioned by him, that the plaintiff had not laid any foundation for her claim for the jewels and the Pin-money, His Lordship then proceeded : ). It follows that the suit was rightly dismissed. In the premises this appeal would have been dismissed but for a supervening event.

11. Pending the appeals, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 was passed by the Indian Parliament. Under S. 18(2) of that statute a wife is entitled to live separately from her husband and claim maintenance on any of the grounds enumerated therein, such as if the husband has any other wife living.

The appellant invokes this provision for claiming maintenance on the ground that the respondents first wife is living. Though the Act was passed subsequent to the dismissal of the suit and this right was not available to the plaintiff at the time of the institution of the suit there can be little doubt that it can be applied to pending proceedings as the court should take into consideration the subsequent legislation which has altered the rights of the parties. Sub-section (1) of S. 18 governs a wife married before the commencement of this Act. Consequently the plaintiff could take advantage of this enactment notwithstanding that her marriage took place in 1927.

12. Mr. Kuppuswamy contends that subsection (2), clause (d) could confer a right only on the first wife to claim maintenance and th