The main legal point established in the judgment is that separate property income should not be considered in determining maintenance, and the maintenance rate should be determined based on changed societal notions.

Pandrang Row, J.

1. These four connected appeals arise out of two suits for maintenance filed by two widows belonging to the same composite family. Appeals Nos. 156 and 191 are by the plaintiffs in the suits and the other two appeals are by defendants 1 to 7. The suits were for maintenance including arrears of maintenance and also for recovery of jewels or their value and for provision for residence. The claim in both cases was for maintenance and arrears at the rate of Rs. 300 a month and Rs. 5,000 each in lieu of provision for residence. The value of the stridhanam jewels that were claimed was Rs. 6,700 and odd in one case and in the other Rs. 8,700. The suits were tried together and disposed of by one and the same judgment dated 12th October, 1935, the suits having been actually instituted in 1929. The Subordinate Judge of Nellore who decided both these suits gave a decree in each case for Rs. 100 a month as maintenance and arrears of maintenance and Rs. 2,500 as provision for residence and dismissed the claim for jewels or their value in both the suits. Both parties have now appealed in both suits and the contentions of the defendants, who are the appellants in two of the appeals, namely, 166 and 179, are that the maintenance and arrears of maintenance should not be more than Rs. 40 a month and that the provision for residence is excessive and they raise also two comparatively minor points relating to the alleged payment of Rs. 500 at the rate of Rs. 250 to each of the plaintiffs just before the suits were instituted and to the direction by the Court below regarding costs of the suits.

2. The point raised in the appeals by the plaintiffs, that is, the claimants for maintenance and arrears, is that they should be given at the lowest Rs. 200 a month and that a decree should have been given for jewels or their value to the extent of Rs. 3,000 in the case of Seethamma, that is, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 66 of 1931 and Rs. 4,000 in the case of Annapoornamma, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 68 of 1931. A point regarding costs has also been raised in these appeals. This direction regarding costs made by the Court below which is objected to by both the sets of appellants will be dealt with after the other points are disposed of.

3. The main question the discussion of which took up most of the time before us is the one relating to the rate of maintenance. The question has been dealt with in very great detail by the Court below, but unfortunately, in dealing with the point in great detail, the Court below lost sight of one or two important points which had to be decided as a preliminary to an examination of the details. In the first place, the Court below relied almost entirely, or at least primarily, on the abstracts of the accounts said to have been kept by the family of the parties for many years. The abstracts however did not include all the years for which accounts are available. The accounts were available from 1907 onwards. But the abstracts filed at first, namely, Ex. 65, related only to Faslis 1333 to 1343 with a break of 4 or 5 faslis here and there. In short, Ex. 65 seems to betray some signs of having been prepared ad hoc for a specific purpose, namely, to show as low a net income as possible. The other abstracts that were filed subsequently, namely, Ex. 66 and certain statements which were filed at a later stage but were not actually marked as exhibits purported to relate to a period of 11 faslis, 1333 to 1343 both inclusive. No doubt if these abstracts had been properly prepared from the family accounts and the latter were reliable they would undoubtedly be the best evidence of the family income, but unfortunately these preliminary conditions have not been satisfied in this case. Let us first see how these abstracts came to be filed into Court. They were filed at a late stage and that too on a direction given by the Court. It is clear from the evidence of the main defendant, the first defendant, that these abstracts wer