The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a wife to maintenance and the authority of the court to grant a charge for maintenance on the husband's share of the family property.

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 not be returned. This is a clear admission by defendant 1 that some jewels were given at the time of marriage. This witness has not been cross-examined and it is therefore clear that this admission is not disputed. It is not suggested that there were any other jewels than these claimed in the plaint, and, therefore, the admission must relate to the receipt of the jewels, etc., for which the plaintiff has obtained a decree. From this witnesss evidence alone it is clear that the lower Courts decree is correct.

3. Appeal No. 116 of 1924 relates to the rate of maintenance awarded, namely, Rs. 20 per month: The amount of maintenance is usually a question which can best be decided by the trial Court but in this case neither party is content with the rate awarded, for the plaintiff has filed a memorandum of objections. This being so, it is necessary to discuss the evidence as to the income of the defendants family and also the amount of maintenance which is suitable for a person in the plaintiffs position in life. Defendant as the manager of the family is in the best position to state what the income of the family is, but instead of frankly putting forward such a statement, he had attempted to make out that the income apart from certain family lands and lands under mortgage is very low. The plaintiff has been able, fortunately for her, to obtain various documents which show clearly that defendant 1 has been engaged in money-lending transactions from which he must have obtained considerable income. Defendant 1 says that a large portion of this money belongs to his wife but in view of his failure to come forward with a frank statement of the family affairs, this allegation cannot be believed in the absence of corroboration. According to the evidence on record, the defendants family possessed property worth Rs. 32,000 including the lands. The income of the lands is stated to be, according to defendant, 1 Rs. 800 per annum, and according to the plaintiff Rs. 1,200 per annum. When we add to this the income from money lending, it is clear that the defendants family is possessed of a considerable income, at least Rs. 200 a month and probably more, for every inference must be drawn against defendant 1 who has not put the facts which are within his knowledge at the disposal of the Court. Besides this evidence, we have the definite statement of the plaintiff in which she gives details to the effect that she cannot live on for less than Rs. 30 a month.

4. We also have the evidence of P.W. 3 who says that anything less than Rs. 35 a month may not suffice for the plaintiffs maintenance. Neither the plaintiff nor this witness has been cross-examined on this point and considering the status of the parties Rs. 30 a month is not an unreasonable amount. In fixing the maintena