A Christian wife has a common law right to separate maintenance from her husband, which she can enforce by filing a suit for maintenance. The children born out of a lawful wedlock are entitled to be provided with maintenance by their father until they attain majority.

S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C. J. : These appeals are the outcome of a suit instituted by the wife, for herself and on behalf of the children born of her wedlock, against her husband for maintenance. The suit was partially decreed, the lower court awarding Rs. 100 per month as maintenance to the wife and Rs. 35 per month for each one of the two children who lived with her; no amount was awarded in respect of the maintenance of the other two children who were residing with, their father. The wife has filed the former of the two appeals complaining of the inadequacy of the amount awarded; the husband has filed the latter appeal contesting the right of the wife and his children who live separate front him to ask for maintenance.

2. The parties, who belong to a well-to-do family in Nazarath in Tirunelveli Dt. are Indian Christians belonging to the Protestant persuasion. They were married on 9-9-1942, They have four issues, three daughters and a son. One of the daughters and the son are now with the father, while the other two daughters are living with their mother. In the suit, the wife claimed maintenance on behalf of the four children, and she had by then instituted a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the two children staying with her husband.

3. The present suit itself has been preceded by a long and acrimonious fight between the husband and wife. Although the actual point for determination in these appeals does not depend very much on the antecedent history, we consider that it should be referred to in brief to serve an introduction to the present dispute. We shall refer to the parties

with reference to their respective ranks in the lower court.

4. There was a childless couple, Peria Nadar and Annammal, in Nazarath. The former was doing very good business and owned considerable properties. They brought up the defendant, Rajiah Ratnam, as their foster-son. Peria Nadar died in the year 1946 leaving a will bequeathing considerable properties to Rajiah Ratnam in some of the properties so bequeathed Rajia Ratnam's interest was only for his life, the remainder having been dispose of in favour of his children. Even so, the remaining properties were undoubtedly very substantial in value. Soon after the death of Peria Nadar, Rajiah Ratnam is said to have taken to loose ways of life, associating himself with women of easy virtue. Protests on the part of the wife only resulted in misunderstandings between the couple. The regrettable feature of this fight was that Annammal, instead of trying to reform the ways of her foster son, joined him in his crusade against his wife. The wife complained of ill-treatment, she said that on 5-2-1952 there was an attempt by her husband and his foster-mother to administer poison to her through a cup of milk sent through the servant maid. Naturally, this created a great sensation in the locality. The wife followed up her accusation with a complaint against her husband, Annammal and five others under S. 307, I.P.C. but the complaint was thrown out, after enquiry, on the ground that no prima facie case had been made out against the persons charged. A subsequent complaint against the servant maid, who gave her the poisoned milk, ended in the acquittal of the latter. The husband on his part filed a petition under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act against the wife for the dissolution of the marriage, charging the latter with adulterous conduct. The Court of the first instance accepted the petition; a decree nisi was passed. But on appeal, this court, after a detailed consideration of the evidence, found in R. C. 19 of 1953, that the accusation against the wife was unjustified and that the evidence adduced on the side of the husband was thoroughly untrustworthy. The result was that the petition filed by the defendant for dissolution of marriage stood dismissed. This order was passed on 19-2-1954.

5. It is the case for the wife that shortly after the filing of the petition for dissolution o