Burn, J.

1. These are cross-appeals. The appellant in S.A. No. 149 of 1937 is the wife of the appellant in S.A. No. 185. In O.S. No. 9 of 1934 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam the wife sued her husband and his father for separate maintenance alleging abandonment and cruelty. In O.S. No. 26 of 1934 the husband sued the wife for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that she was staying away from him without, proper cause. The learned Subordinate Judge tried both the suits together and came to the conclusion that the husband was not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights because he had virtually abandoned his wife and because his offers to maintain her were not genuine or bona fide. The learned Subordinate Judge, therefore dismissed the husbands suit and gave the wife a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem with Rs. 130 for arrears of maintenance. The unprofitable character of this litigation is sufficiently shown by the fact that the learned Subordinate Judge felt himself compelled to order the plaintiff who had sued in forma pauperis to pay to the Government Rs, 269-15-0 for Court-fee due on the plaint. On appeal to the District Jud