Phillips, J.

1. These two appeals are against a decree obtained by the plaintiff-respondent for maintenance and return of jewels. The former appeal is by defendant 1, respondents father-in-law, against the latter portion of the decree and the latter appeal is by defendant 2, respondents husband, against the decree for maintenance. So far as the respondents right to maintenance is concerned the appeal is not pressed, for the relations between the respondent and her husband and his father, defendant 1 and the brother of defendant 2 have been so strained that criminal cases have arisen and undoubtedly the respondent suffered considerable ill-treatment at the hands of her husband and his family.

2. Appeal No. 115 of 1924 relates to jewels which are said to have been given to the respondent at the time of her nuptials. The oral evidence is in some respects discrepant, but as it is given 12 years after the events took place, too much importance cannot be attached to such discrepancies in details. What is of weight is the evidence of P.W. 7, a High Court vakil. He says that defendant, when asked by him to return the jewels and vessels replied that they were given as a gift and would