The main legal point established in the judgment is the survival of a Hindu wife's right of maintenance against the heirs-in-law and the determination of the suitable rate of maintenance.

Spencer, Og.C.J.

1. This is a suit to recover 12 years arrears of maintenance. The 1st defendant, who was the Zamindar of Vallur, died after the institution of the suit and his sons were brought on the record, as 2nd and 3rd defendants. He married two wives, who were sisters of each other. The plaintiff is the senior wife. She bore two sons and a daughter, but the sons died young. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month, for the last 12 years. She was living apart from her husband, for the last 23 years; but, as her claim for more than 12 years maintenance is barred under Article 128 of the Limitation Act, she makes no claim for the remaining eleven years.

2. It appears from Exs. G, G-2, G-3, G-4 and G-9, which are letters written by the Zamindar, that he was fond of his wife at first and grateful to her for letting him marry her sister. In 1890, she went away to Cocanada from Pangidigudem, her husbands residence, but returned. In November 1894, she and her sister both went away to Cocanada taking their children with them. By that time, the Zamindar had brought a concubine named Mahalakshmi to Pangidigudem and, during his absence at Hyderabad, they found poison in the food that was cooked for them, which was the immediate occasion for their leaving the protection of his house. The learned Subordinate Judge regards the poisoning story as a myth. I see no reason to suppose that it was unfounded. It is not proved that the Zemindar, who was absent in Hyderabad, ordered poison to be put in his wives food, but that there was poison is proved by the uncontradicted fact that a dog which ate the curry died soon afterwards. The plaintiff, in her evidence, taken on commission has told the story, as to the poisoning, and her daughter in her evidence, as D.W. 1, corroborates it; and the truth of the story is not discounted by the Subordinate Judges observation, "it is not known how the pills did not dissolve in the curry," for nothing is known or attempted to be proved about the composition of the pills. Anyhow, the presence of a concubine in the Pangidigudem Port and the poisoning incident were quite sufficient to make the women go somewhere, where they would not run the risk of being poisoned and were sure of being kindly treated.

3. After the wives had gone to Cocanada, the Zemindar sued them both for the custody of the children and obtained a decree, but the decree, Ex. VII was not executed. Attempts were made to take the children by force, in which the plaintiffs brother received injuries. The Zemindar accused his wives and his brother of stealing estate jewellery. The District Magistrate, Mr. Boddie, dismissed the complaint in his order, Ex. A. He found that the jewellery taken by the plaintiff and her sister consisted only of those jewels, which they were wearing and that they acted without any dishonest intention, and he observed that the " complainant had not allowed any of the accused one pie for their maintenance, since they left Pangidigudem." The High Court in dealing with an appeal, Ex. Z, inferred from the Zemindars conduct that the estate jewels were really secreted by him and that, the criminal proceedings instituted against his senior wife were a mere blind. After this, the Zemindar made peace with his junior wife and took her back together with her children. She was plaintiffs sister and his third wife, the second wife having died in the first year of her marriage, After this, the plaintiff was continually demanding maintenance from her husband and she came occasionally to Pangidigudem and asked him to let her stay there and live with him as before, but he was constantly putting her off, with some excuse or promise that he would make arrangements. Exs. III(m), III(11) and J(I) show that the plaintiff was occasionally going to Pangidigudem, and D.W. 5 admits seeing her there; but in a letter Ex. N and a telegram Ex. N(1), the Zemindar said that he had no desire to see her and that she should not come