The main legal point established in the judgment is that a spouse must have a reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the other spouse's society, and living separately may lead to forfeiture of the claim for maintenance.

1. These appeals, one by the husband and the other by the wife, exemplify bow domestic peace and harmony is broken by the inability of a spouse to adjust himself or herself to the new environment created by the marital status. The evidence in the case discloses the dormant anxiety of the wife to be in her rightful place with her husband, and the eagerness of the husband to be beside his wife. However, for the wife her in-laws come in between her and her husband and according to the husband he cannot discard his aged parents. An embarassing situation is the result, and both have approached the courts, each one to vindicate his or her respective stand, husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights and wife claiming maintenance. Both got the reliefs prayed for. and the defeated spouse in each of the proceedings has preferred these appeals. A.S. No. 496 of 1972 is by the wife and A.S. No. 313 of 1973 (A.S. No. 76 of 1973 of the Additional Sub Court, Trivandrum, which was withdrawn to this Court) is by the husband. We will be referring the parties throughout this judgment according to their rank in the main appeal, A.S. No. 496 of 1972.

2. The events, (so far as they are relevant for deciding the dispute) of the short marital life of the parties before us are few and simple. The respondent, a draftsman in the Public Health Engineering Department and a permanent resident of Trivandrum, while stationed at Alleppey, married the appellant, also a resident at Trivandrum on 2 71967. The appellant shifted her residence to her martial home at Trivandrum immediately thereafter, and lived there till 18 81968. During this period the respondent was away from that house, being employed at Alleppey; but even according to the appellant as dw.1 respondent made frequent visits (20 times) to the marital home at Trivandrum. Respondent's aged parents, his two brothers and till her marriage his sister were also residing in the same house which is a rented building. On 18-8-1968 it is the appellant's case that she was pushed out of that house by her parents-in-law. According to the respondent she went on her own accord with her parents to her parental house situate in a nearby street, within a furlong. Ext. D2 letter dated 1011968 sent by the respondent to his father-in-law, (about seven months prior to the departure of the appellant from the matrimonial home) reveals some misunderstanding between them about the latter's behaviour towards the former, but no further details are available. About six months after the appellant left her marital home, on 13 21969 Advocate Mr. Vysan Poti, on behalf of the appellant issued a lawyer's notice, Ext. D3, alleging that the respondent's 'house people' ill-treated the appellant, that her life was in danger in that house, that she was driven away and that the respondent has in spite of demands refused to take her to Alleppy. The notice required the respondent to make his marital home at Alleppy by taking her there, and threatened him with legal proceedings for maintenance on failure to comply with the demand. The respondent sent Ext. D4 reply dated 22 21969 accusing his parents-in-law of goading his wife against her wishes to leave his house and to stay in her parental house. He pleaded his inability to start a separate establishment at Alleppy. By this time the respondent appears to have been transferred to Kayamkulam. On behalf of the appellant another notice, Ext. D5 dated 131969, was issued also by Mr. Poti repeating the demand that the respondent should take the appellant to the place of his employment. The respondent filed his application for restitution of conjugal rights on 3121970, and the appellant filed her suit for maintenance on 17 1970. By this time the respondent was residing in his house, he having been transferred to and stationed at Trivandrum in 1969.

3. The respondent applied for restitution of conjugal rights under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which reads:

"9. (1) When either the