The main legal point established is that a suit for streedhanam is maintainable under S.6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and maintenance can be granted based on principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

This is an appeal by the defendant. Defendant is the husband of the 1st plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff is the minor child of the 1st plaintiff and the defendant.

2. Suit was one for return of the streedhanam amount paid to the defendant by the parents of the 1st plaintiff. According to the 1st plaintiff, on the date of betrothal, the father of the 1st plaintiff promised an amount of Rs.22,000/- and 16 sovereigns of gold ornaments as streedhanam for his daughter, the 1st plaintiff and the father agreed to pay Rs. 12,000/- on the date of betrothal and the balance Rs.10,000/.- within one year after the marriage. It was also agreed that the gold sovereigns will be given at the time of marriage. The marriage took place on 13-11-1977.

3. The further case of the 1st plaintiff is that as promised, Rs.12,000/- was given on the betrothal day by the father and the gold sovereigns were given on the date of marriage. The balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid on two occasions; on 30-3-1978 an amount of Rs.5,000/- and on 10-1-1979 the balance amount of Rs.5,000/-. The husband and wife, were living together for some time and the 2nd defendant was born in that wedlock. But quarrels and bickering started and the marriage ended in an unhappy separation. Though no divorce has been obtained, the husband and wife arc living separately, wife the 1st plaintiff in her parents home with the child, the 2nd plaintiff. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.22,000/- and also the value of 16 sovereigns of gold ornaments or the return of the 16 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

4. Defendant contended that he has received from the father of the 1st plaintiff only an amount of Rs.12,000/-. There was no promise to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as alleged in the plaint. It was also slated that apart from Rs.12,000/- paid by the father of the 1st plaintiff, no amount was paid by the parents of the 1st plaintiff. Certainly the amount ofRs.12,000/- is dowry and so it has got all the incidents of dowry, viz., this amount is in trust for the wife paid to the husband by the wife's father. He contended that at the lime of marriage, 1st plaintiff was given only 5-6 sovereigns and the case of the 1st plaintiff (hat she has been given 16 sovereigns is a false case. Further he contended that whatever gold ornaments the 1st plaintiff had, she had taken it when she left her husband-defendant. It is also stated that the 1st plaintiff is unwilling to live with the husband not on account of any ill-treatment, but she is arrogant and that she wanted to live with more affluence in the house of her father.

5. The court below took evidence in the case, analysed the evidence, applied the law and granted a decree directing payment of Rs.22,000/- by way of streedhanam and the value of 16 sovereigns of gold ornaments within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which the plaintiff can realise from the defendant its value calculated at the rate of Rs. 1,300/- per sovereign. There was another relief claimed in the plaint. The 1st plaintiff wan led maintenance for her and for the 2nd plaintiff from the defendant. The court below decreed maintenance at the rate of Rs.100/- per mensem from the date of suit for the 2nd plaintiff-minor child. The decree is now challenged in this appeal by the defendant.

6. Counsel for the appellant took me to the entire evidence in the case and the pleadings and advanced elaborate argument based on the evidence in this case. He submitted that in view of I he Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 the suit itself is not maintainable. I do not think that this contention has any force in view of-the Division Bench decision reported in 1980 KLT 353 (Mary v. Cherchi & others'). In 1980 KLT 353 the Division Bench (bund that the suit is maintainable even if it is sthreedhanam or dowry notwithstanding the Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis that "sthreedhanam is always the property of the woman whoever is given