Varghese Kalliath, J.

These two appeals come up before us on a reference by a learned single judge of this Court. Both these appeals arise from one suit - O.S.No.144/81. It was filed by the wife against her husband. S.A.No.827/85 is by the husband and S.A.No.777/86 is by the wife.

2. The wife instituted the suit against the husband for recovery of the amount of stridhanam and ornaments received by the husband on the occasion of her mamage. She also claimed maintenance from the husband.

3. The trial court found that the wife is entitled to a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,000/- and jewels of 10 sovereigns. The claim for maintenance was disallowed. Both husband and wife preferred appeals before the lower appellate court. Defendant/husband challenged the decree allowing recovery of Rs.3,000/- and the jewels. Plaintiff/wife challenged that part of the decree refusing to award maintenance.

4. The court below considered the appeals together and passed a common judgment. The court below allowed both the appeals thereby plaintiff's prayer for maintenance was allowed, but the prayer for recovery of Rs.3,000/- and the jewels or its value was refused. Both husband and wife filed appeals, S.A.No.827/85 and S.A.No.777/86.

5. The court below found that the suit for recovery of Rs.3,000/- and the jewels or its value is barred by limitation and so that relief was refused. The court below did not agree with the trial court in regard to the claim of the plaintiff/wife for maintenance. It found that the wife is entitled to maintenance and granted a decree and thus allowed the appeal filed by the wife. As we said earlier, the husband's appeal related only to the question of the relief granted to the wife, viz., recovery of Rs.3,000/- and jewels of 10 sovereigns or its value. The appellate court found that the claim of the wife for jewels and the amount paid on the occasion of the mamage is barred by limitation and it allowed the appeal filed by the husband/ defendant.

6. When these two appeals came up for hearing the learned single judge expressed a doubt as to the applicability of S.10 of the Limitation Act and also the question regarding the application of the correct Article of limitation applicable to the facts of the case. Before considering the question referred to the Division Bench for decision by the learned single judge, we feel that we must consider the other questions regarding the liability of the defendant. Two distinct claims are made by the plaintiff/wife; (i) recovery of Rs.3,000/- and jewels of 10 sovereigns and (ii) claim for maintenance. As regards the payment of Rs.3,000/-, there is clear evidence and so if the claim is not barred by limitation, plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs.3,000/-. As regards the question of return of jewels, the appellate court considered the evidence elaborately and came to the conclusion that the court cannot direct the husband to return it, since there is no evidence as to the fact that the jewels were in the possession and custody of the husband when the wife left the husband's house. This is purely a question of fact and in a Second Appeal we are expected only to consider substantial questions of law and since the final fact finding court has found on facts proved in the case that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the jewels, we do not think that it is justifiable on our part to interfere with that part of the judgment. Of course, in regard to the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.3,000/-, that claim has been rejected solely on the ground of limitation and it is therefore integrally linked with the question now referred by the learned single judge for our decision.

7. Regarding the second question, viz., whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance, we felt that there is not much controversy about it before us, both in regard to the liability as well as the quantum. It has to be noted that as regards the quantum, it is purely a question of fa