This petition raises an interesting question as to whether a Muslim wife divorced by an irrevocable thalak, at Karur, has a right to sue for the interim maintenance amount due and return of her clothes and jewels, at Tanjore, her normal place of residence at the time when the thalak was pronounced and the place at which the thalak was made known to her. The lower Court held that part of the cause of action arose at Tanjore because the irrevocable thalak was communicated to her when she was living at that place; and because the husband was bound to seek out the wife, who was resident at Tanjore and return to her her jewels and clothes there as soon as he pronounced the irrevocable thalak and communicated it. There is also an implied assumption in the lower Court’s order that, in any event, the wife could bring the suit on the cause of action at Tanjore, where she was normally living, the moment her rights to the clothes and jewels on the irrevocable thalak arose. Of course, as urged by Mr. Amudachari, for the husband, it would be most unreasonable to contend that a Muslim husband, the moment he pronounces an irrecoverable thalak, is bound to carry the divorced wife’s cloth