MODI, J.—This is a first appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Udaipur, dated 3rd December, 1959, in an application for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The appellant is the wife Mst. Tulsi Bai while the contesting respondent No. 1 is the husband Chunilal. It is common ground between the parties that they were married some thirty years ago before the present application came to be filed on the 19th July, 1958, and that there is one son named Shantilal born of this marriage, who was 10 years of age in 1958. It is also admitted that the respondent husband had instituted a suit being No. 220 of Smt. 1989 (corresponding to some time in 1932 A D.) for restitution of conjugal rights, against the appellant, and that suit was decreed in his favour subject to the condition that he must file a surety bond for a certain sum of money to the effect that he would not ill-treat his wife. It appears that the husband was not able to file the bond and consequently the appellant remained at her fathers house for a period of about two years before they resumed their conjugal relations. The respondents case was that relations between him and the appellant had become strained because she was a woman of loose character and had developed illicit connection with respondent No. 2 Mohan on the 9th March, 1957. It was further alleged that she got the respondent beaten by her brother and father and eventually left her husbands home more than two years ago taking with herself some gold and silver ornaments, the particulars of which have been mentioned in paragraph (10) of the application. Consequently the respondent prayed that a decree for divorce be awarded in his favour and, in the alternative, a decree for judicial separation be granted.

3. The appellant resisted this application. Her case, put briefly, was that until about four or five years before the present application was filed by her husband, she had steadfastly lived with, and under the roof of, her husband in spite of all the ill-treatment which he offered to her, the reason being that he was addicted to drink. She further contended that she had been forcibly turned out by her husband on the 19th April, 1955, after being deprived of all the ornaments which she had on her person including her own Stridhan. Thereupon, her case is that she was compelled to make an application in the criminal court under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which resulted in her husband being bound down for good behaviour. Her case further is that she had also made an application for maintenance under sec. 488 Cr. P.C. in the criminal court which was allowed right upto the High Court and a maintenance allowance of Rs. 20/- per mensem for herself and her son was ordered to be paid by her husband Chunilal to her, but as the latter was bent upon flouting this order, he was ordered to serve a sentence of imprisonment in jail more than once. To sum up, the case of the appellant, therefore, was that the present application by Chunilal was just a device to get rid of the effect of the order of maintenance which had been passed against him by the criminal court.

4. On these pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Court on the 28th February, 1959:—

(1) Whether respondent No.l Mst. Tulsi Bai is living in adultery?

(2) Whether a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed against the respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioner?

(3) If so, whether the respondent No. 1 failed to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years upwards after the passing of the decree?

(4) Whether it is a mala fide application brought to deprive the wife from receiving maintenance? If so what is its effect?

(5) Whether respondent No.l Mst. Tulsi Bai took away ornaments belonging to the husband as detailed in paragraph No. 10 of the petition? If so, whether the petitioner is entitled to recover the same from her?

Yet another issue was struck on the 4.4.1959,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document