JUDGMENT

Das, J. - The plaintiff in this suit is the wife of the defendant. Both of them belong to the Jewish community and profess the Jewish faith. They are domiciled residents of the town of Calcutta within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court. They were married on 15th June 1924 according to Jewish rites and rituals. There are four children of this marriage. The marriage, however, did not prove to be a happy one. In 1928 there were troubles between the husband and wife but a reconciliation was brought about. Again in 1930, they fell out but were again brought together through the good offices of friends and relations. In 1934 the differences between the husband and the wife broke out once more and led the husband to suggest an amicable separation between them upon certain terms set forth in his solicitors' letter to the wife dated 20th June 1934. The differences, however, were happily composed and there was a reconciliation between the husband and the wife. Towards the end of 1937 unpleasant incidents occurred again and the parties went to the Police Court over them. The husband was, however, eventually acquitted and amity was restored. A deed of joint declaration was executed and the differences were adjusted on certain terms. The disputes unfortunately arose again and came to a head in 1941. It is neither profitable nor necessary to refer to the correspondence or to attempt to apportion the blame for the unhappy estrangement. Suffice it to say that eventually the husband again put forward the suggestion for a deed of separation The draft was prepared by his solicitors The terms having been finally agreed upon between the parties a deed of separation was executed by them on 13th February 1941. By this deed the husband agreed to pay to the wife, so long she should lead a chaste life, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month commencing from 1st October 1940 and the wife agreed that she should not by any means compel the husband to allow her any maintenance further than the said monthly maintenance of Rs. 50 until such time as there be an increase in the husband's income. It was also agreed that the said sum of Rs. 50 would be liable to proportionate decrease with the decrease in the husband's income. The custody of the children was given to the husband and a provision was made for allowing the wife to have reasonable access to the children. It was agreed that the wife might at all times thereafter live separate from the husband as if she were unmarried and in all respects free from the control and authority of the husband. Each party agreed not to molest or disturb the other or in any manner compel the other to cohabit with him or her or endeavour restitution of conjugal rights. Finally it was provided that if the husband or the wife should thereafter at any time by mutual consent come together and cohabit with each other or if their marriage be dissolved, her maintenance should thereupon be determined and cease to be payable and all covenants and provisions contained in the deed should become void. The sum of Rs. 50 is said to have been fixed on the basis of the husband's income being Rs. 150 per month at the time.

2. Pursuant to this deed of separation, the husband and wife lived apart, the children remained in the custody and under the care of the husband and the husband went on paying maintenance to the wife at the rate provided therein In April 1942, the husband notified the wife that he would not pay any further maintenance as he would lose his employment from June then next. Obviously the husband relied on the terms of the deed which provided that the wife's maintenance would decrease with the decrease in his income. On 4th May 1942, however, the defendant's father, who was a very wealthy gentleman, died. Under the deed of trust and under the will of the father the defendant is alleged to have come into a large fortune and his income is said to have gone up considerably. The wife was not slow in ta