A Hindu wife is entitled to separate maintenance and residence on the grounds of cruelty and abandonment by her husband, and under the provisions of the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946 (Act 19 of 1946).

MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14-51949, of Sri B. S. Patnaik, Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, in a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of maintenance, for future maintenance, and for recovery of the value of gold and silver ornaments alleged to have been forcibly kept back from the plaintiff by the defendants. Defendant No. 1 is the husband of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 is the father of defendant No. 1. Admittedly the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 married in the month of Baishakha, 1943. The plaintiff left the defendant's house in Ashardha, 1944 and has not gone to her husband's place since then. The further admitted feature of the case is that defendant No. 1 married another wife in Ashardha, 1945. The plaintiff's case is that she comes of a fairly well-to-do family, her father being an Union President and also a contractor. The defendants are also sufficiently rich owning properties valued at rupees fifty thousand and defendant No. 1 is also serving under the government of Orissa on a salary of nearly seventy rupees. At the time of her marriage, her father gave her dowry of gold and silver ornaments and other articles described in Schedule A of the plaint and also presented valuable articles to the groom including wrist watch and gold wristband. The further story of the plaintiff as to the origin of differences between the two families is that the plaintiff's father possesses about four acres of land in mouza kolasahi adjoining to the lands of the defendants. The defendants pressed the father of the plaintiff to make a gift of those four acres of land in favour of defendant No. 1 Plaintiff's father, however, agreed to part with one acre only. The defendants put pressure upon the present plaintiff to persuade her father to accede to the aforesaid request of the defendants. The plaintiff having refused, the dissension between the husband and the wife started. The plaintiff thereafter was looked upon with hatred and was neglected in all respects. Even she was not given food and drink properly and was to do all menial work in the household including cleaning of the cowshed and the utensils, etc. She was also physically tortured, slapped and kicked by the mother-in-law. Her husband joined hands with the parents in harassing her. She was also deprived of all the pleasures of a married life. She found it impossible to continue in the house of the defendants any longer and therefore left the house in Ashardha, 1944. While she left the house of the defendants, all the ornaments described in the schedule were forcibly kept back by the defendants. The plaintiff therefore prays for past maintenance at the rate of fifty rupees from Ashardha, 1944 amounting to a sum of Rs. 1475/ -. She claims future maintenance at the rate Rs. 50/-per month and charges for separate residence at the rate of Rs. 10/ -. She valued the articles in schedule A at Rs. 4084/ -.

( 2 ) THE defence taken by the husband is that the plaintiff is an ill-bred and quarrelsome lady who has no fine sentiment for her husband and has no conception of a wife's duty towards her husband, and the only thing that she expected was the satisfaction of her physical needs, particularly her sexual satisfaction for which the husband was not fully capable since he had constant attacks from colic soon after his marriage. His further case is that she voluntarily left the defendants' house in Ashardha, 1944 and is not coming back in spite of repeated requests. The defendant, therefore, had married for the second time in ashardha, 1945. The defendant asserts that as his parents were responsible for this unhappy marriage with the present plaintiff, soon after the marriage he is living away from his parents. He is drawing a salary of Rs. 64/ -. In the circumstances, he is not liable for any separate maintenance claimed by the plaintiff. He has taken the further plea that the amount charged is ex