S.40 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 applies to all decrees that may be passed under the Act, including decrees obtained by the husband against the wife on the ground of desertion.

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.:- This is an appeal by the husband against his wife and it has been preferred against the order passed by Coyajee, J., directing him to pay alimony to his wife at the rate of Rs.80 per month. The learned Judge has also directed that this amount should be paid from the date when the petition for alimony was presented, that is to say, from 18-9-1950. As to the costs, the learned Judge has ordered that the husband should pay the costs and the wifes costs have been fixed at a lump sum of Rs.2,100.

2. In the present appeal, Mr. Javeri contends that the learned Judge was in error in holding that the husband was liable to pay alimony to the wife and that he was also in error in fixing the amount at Rs.80 and in directing that the said amount should be paid from the date of the petition. The order of costs has also been challenged by Mr. Javeri.

3. This unfortunate litigation has had a very chequered career. Indeed the marriage between the parties has turned out to be a complete failure. The parties were married on 15-8-1945. The wife belonged to Nasik and the husband to Bombay. The husband is a doctor and is employed by the Tatas. It appears to have been a very short-lived period of married life between the two parties and it is fairly clear that both the parties found it difficult to adjust themselves to each other.

The husband is disposed to take care of his brothers and his sisters and he expected that his wife should join him in his household which consisted of the said relatives. The wife was unable to appreciate the husbands affection for his relatives and that in substance is the genesis of the bickerings and disputes between the parties. Though the litigation between the parties has gone through a chequered career, it must be said in fairness to both the parties that no allegation has been made by either of them against the other in respect of character.

The predicament in which the husband found himself is not unusual. He felt that he owed some obligation to his relatives and he was apparently trying to adjust his obligations to his relatives with those to his wife, while the wife apparently felt that she would not be able to live her full personal life unless the husband and she alone built up a world of their own. In such circumstances, it is sometimes futile to try to apportion blame between the parties.

Even so, the unfortunate fact stared at both the parties to the present dispute that they were not able to pull on together for any length of time. It is unnecessary to set out the details in regard to the developments that took place in the married life of this couple. A girl was born of this marriage in August 1946. But even this happy event made no difference in the relationship between the husband and wife. The wife came and stayed with the husband for some time; then she went back to her parents ostensibly for the purpose of attending a navjot ceremony in her family. She came back again, but that was with a view to return to her parents once again and she did leave the husbands protection sometime in May 1946 irrevocably. On 21-6-1949, the wife sued the husband for divorce on the ground of desertion. The husband counter-claimed and prayed for divorce on the ground of his desertion by the wife. It appears that the hearing of this suit and counter-claim commenced before Bhagwati, J., on 10-10-1949. The wife gave evidence and she examined nine witnesses. Her case was closed on 13-10-1949. On October 14, the husband stepped into the box and gave evidence-in-chief.

Then the learned counsel for the wife told Bhagwati, J., that he did not propose to cross-examine the husband. Bhagwati, J., then ruled that the failure of the wife to cross-examine the husband necessarily meant that the statements made by the husband on oath in the witness-box were not disputed by the wife and on this ruling the matter came to be decided.

The delegates were asked to answer the issues which had been framed for their decisio