1. The 3rd defendant is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a plaintiff (respondent 1) for recovery of maintenance, past and future, and for other incidental reliefs. The learned Subordinate Judge has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 55 per mensem, besides a lump sum as arrears of maintenance due for seven years and ten months prior to the date of suit.

2. The two main contentions pressed in this appeal are, that the rate of maintenance awarded to the plaintiff is excessive and that the claim for past maintenance is unsustainable. In the memorandum of appeal it is conceded that the plaintiff could be given maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20 a month, though, in the written statement, not more than Rs. 91 a month was stated to be the proper rate of maintenance awardable to the plaintiff. It is pretty clear from the evidence that the defendants family is in affluent circumstances, possessing considerable landed property and also carrying on some lucrative family business. The evidence of P. W. 4, who is a relation of both parties and who was also cited as a witness by both sides and whose respectability has not been challenged, discloses that the family