1. The allegations of cruelty, ill treatment, desertion, and the second marriage of the husband must be proved by sufficient evidence to establish a claim for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. 2. The mother is not competent to bring a suit for maintenance on behalf of the minor child against the father, who is the natural guardian of the child under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- Plaintiff-appellant No. 1 is the mother and plaintiff-appellant No. 2 is minor son. Appellant No. 1 had brought a suit claiming past and future maintenance for herself and for her minor son against defendant No. 1 praying the same to be a charge on the property of D.1 which has been dismissed in toto.

2. The admitted facts are that appellant No. 1 is the married wife of Bhima Sahu, defendant-respondent No. 1. Appellant No. 2 is their son born to them on 12-8-1956. Both the parties belong to Cuttack town. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of late Jai Sahu who died on 8-10-1960. Defendant No. 4 is the widow of Jai Sahu and defendant No. 5 is alleged to be the second married wife of defendant No. 1.

3. According to the plaint allegation the defendants are members of a Mitakshara joint family and late Jai Sahu was a prosperous business man. Defendant No. 1 is also carrying a business in Station Bazar, Cuttack and earning a profit of about Rs. 1,000/- per month. It is said that defendant No. 1 took to drinking and on her protest began abusing and assaulting plaintiff No. 1 towards the end of December, 1959. The plaintiff was thereafter neglected by defendant No. 1. She fell seriously ill towards January, 1960 and at the instance of the mother-in-law of the plaintiff she was sent to her father s place towards the end of January 1960 which was a Saraswati Puja day with her son leaving her ornaments behind. Her father spent about Rs. 150/- towards her treatment and brought her round but defendant No. 1 did not contribute a pie. After she got cured the plaintiff s father requested the mother of defendant No. 1 to take back the plaintiff but to no effect. Therefore the plaintiff issued a pleader s registered notice on 18-4-1960 asking defendant No. 1 to pay maintenance and to return her ornaments etc. To this D.1 sent a reply on 26-4-1960. Thereafter there were two Panchayatis over this matter on 31-7-1960 and 30-10-1960 but without any success. Defendant No. 1 coming to know that the plaintiff was going to file a suit for maintenance served a notice on the plaintiff s father on 5-12-1960 to which a reply was sent on 25-12-1960. It is further alleged that defendant No. 1 married defendant No. 5 in April 1960 and both are living as husband and wife. Hence she claimed separate maintenance and residence on the ground of physical and mental cruelty, continued neglect, ill treatment and desertion by defendant No. 1 and subsequent marriage with defendant No. 5. She brought the suit towards December, 1961 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month for herself and at the rate of Rs. 50/- for her minor son and Rs. 25/- for the educational expenses of plaintiff No. 2.

4. Defendant No. 1 filed a separate written statement from the one filed by defendant Nos. 2 to 4. Defendant No. 5 was set ex parte. The case of D.1 was that he did not take to drinking, did not illtreat of neglect her nor has deserted her. His case was that the plaintiff wanted to live separate and persuaded the defendant to become separate. After separation the share that fell to them was a small room and so she did not like to stay there. On the Saraswati Puja Day of the year 1960 she voluntarily went to her father s house with her father. She took her ornaments, wearing apparels and all her belongings. She also took her son (plaintiff No. 2) against the wishes of defendant No. 1 and did not return though her father had promised to send her back within a week. Defendant No. 1 also sent his mother and others to persuade the father of plaintiff No. 1 to send his daughter but to no effect. Finally, finding no other alternative defendant No. 1 personally went and requested the father of plaintiff No. 1 to send his wife but to no effect. Rather, the father wanted that defendant No. 1 should come and stay with him in his house because it was impossible for his daughter to stay in such poor conditions with defendant No. 1. The story of the plaintiff s ill