JUDGMENT :

SAMBASIVA RAO, J.

1. Though the judgment of Venkatratna Sastry, J. which is sought to be appealed against, is an affirming one, Sri P. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-defendants raises many points in support of the appeals.

2. Firstly, he argues that the plaintiff-respondent who filed the suit for partition as the heir of her husband, had lost the status of the wife, and so, she could not claim a share. That is on the ground that on 28th of July, 1962, a decree for judicial separation was passed at the instance of the husband against the respondent. She was provided maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per monte. In execution of this decree for maintenance at the even applied for arrest of the husband. Without anything more happening, he died in the year 1967 and she filed the suit for partition in 1963.

3. Sri Rama Rao maintains that the requirements of sub-section I-A of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 have existed in this case, since there was a decree for judicial separation and there is no evidence of resumption of cohabitation between the spouses for a period of two years or upwards after passing of the decree. So, it is contended that it must