The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to separate maintenance in cases of abandonment, and the application of legal principles to determine the rate and period for arrears.

Pandalai, J.

1. The plaintiff appeals from a decree in a suit for maintenance brought by her against respondent 1, her husband, and respondent 2, her husbands elder brother by birth. Her suit was based upon the allegation that both the respondents form members of an undivided family, that she had been deserted by her husband and that therefore she was entitled to future maintenance an arrears of maintenance for 12 years before the suit at the rate of Rs. 50 a month. The learned Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry found that the defendants though brothers by birth no longer belonged to the same family because defendant 1 had been adopted away by the widow of his paternal uncle Raghavaeharyulu and that therefore the plaintiff had no claim for maintenance against defendant 2 whose father had himself been adopted away to another family. As against defendant 1 the learned Judge found on the first issue that the plaintiff was the second wife of defendant 1 the first wife having predeceased the second marriage, that soon after the plaintiff came of age quarrels-arose as a result of which the plaintiff was taken away by her father to his own house in or about 1909, that in 1914 the plaintiff and her father made attempts to bring her back to the protection of defendant 1 as they learnt that he was preparing to marry for a third time, that this attempt did not succeed because defendant 1 and his elder brother, defendant, 2, who was living with him were not serious and put conditions upon the proposals, that thereafter the plaintiff had all along, lived with her father and that defendant 1 had at any rate after 1914 abandoned the plaintiff. He therefore held that the plaintiff was entitled to separate maintenance. He awarded her future maintenance from the date of suit at the rate of Rs. 100 a year and three years arrears at the same rate. He declined to give arrears for any longer period.

2. In this appeal the first question argued is that the Judges finding as to the adoption of respondent 1 (defendant 1) is not supported by sufficient evidence; We have been taken through the evidence and it is sufficient to say that it fully supports the Judges finding that defendant 1 was taken in adoption by Venkatamma, the widow of Raghavacharyulu, the brother of defendants natural father Sobhanadracharyulu who* had himself been adopted away. As a result of these adoptions the family of defendant 1 and that of defendant 2. have become entirely distinct and therefore respondent 2 (defendant 2) and the properties of his family are not liable for the plaintiffs claim. To that extent the appeal fails and must be dismissed.

3. The appeal as against defendant 1 comprises two parts : first as to the rate of maintenance if any to be awarded after the suit; secondly for what period before suit the appellant is entitled to arrears and at what rate. As to the plaintiffs right to separate maintenance we agree with the learned Judge who has dealt with all the relevant facts in an exhaustive manner without condoning any of the faults of the plaintiff or her father. As he observes the marriage turned out singularly unfortunate; whether it was the fault of the parties or of their relations is not very material. Undoubtedly in the earlier years at least the fault must mainly have been on the part of the relations. Although the marriage was in 1905 and the plaintiff attained puberty in 1908 when she was 13 or 14, the parties did not live together for more than one and half years. The plaintiffs father belongs to a priestly family, her fathers occupation being fulfilling the office of guru, The defendants are both graduates. Defendant 2, the elder of the two, is a M.A.L.T. and was employed during the pendency of the suit in the Pittapur Rajahs College at Cocanada. Defendant 1 who though adopted away was educated and brought up by his elder brother, is a B.A.L.T. and during the pendency of the suit was drawing a salary of Rs. 108 as a teacher in a Board School. He i