The wife's right to maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, is subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the section. The wife is not entitled to maintenance if she lives separately from her husband without any justifiable reason.

P. C. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE sole plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The defendant is the husband of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's suit is for a decree against the defendant (a) for maintenance of Rs. 60/- P. M. , (b) for Rs. 1220/- towards arrear of maintenance and (c) for Rs. 500/- for separate residence.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case in brief is as follows:-the plaintiff is the legally married wife of the defendant and after their marriage, they lived as husband and wife for some time. The defendant thereafter ill-treated her and she left his house and is residing separately for which she brought the suit registered as T. S. No. 51/57 in the Court of the Sub-Judge. Bolangir for restitution of conjugal rights, the said suit was decreed. The plaintiff alleges that in spite of the decree, the defendant did not take her to his house in accordance with the custom governing the parties and the defendant, instead, married a second wife namely Kunjabati daughter of one Jogeswar Pradhan of Ranikata. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendant has got two children through the second wife. She claims that in the aforesaid circumstances the defendant is bound to maintain her by providing maintenance and a separate residence. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant owns about 10 acres of land, the annual income wherefrom would not be less than Rs. 10,000/-, according to the plaintiff she is entitled to the maintenance as prayed for.

( 3 ) THE defendant in his written statement has admitted the plaintiff to be his legally married wife. He also admits that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed as alleged by the plaintiff. He further alleges that though he has been all through ready and willing to take the plaintiff to his house it is the plaintiff who does not intend to join him. The defendant strongly denies that he has married for the second time and also denies to have owned 10 acres of land as alleged by the plaintiff. According to him he has only 3 to 4 acres of land, the annual income of which would not exceed Rs. 400/ -. It has been further stated in the written statement in view of his pecuniary condition, the maximum he can afford to pay is Rs. 2/- p. m.

( 4 ) THE trial Court after receiving the evidence tendered by the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish the factum of second marriage between the defendant and Kunjabati. It also found that the defendant is not guilty of desertion and as such the plaintiff cannot claim maintenance on the ground of desertion. The trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable and, accordingly, the same was dismissed.

( 5 ) IN this appeal, the plaintiff has challenged all the findings of the trial Court. Mr. G. Rath the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has urged that in view of the evidence available on record it should be found that the defendant-respondent is guilty of desertion, for which the plaintiff is entitled to separate residence and maintenance. He has further urged that the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff is sufficient to hold that the defendant has married for the second time as alleged in the plaint and thus the plaintiff is entitled to live separately from her husband and claim maintenance. He has further argued that irrespective of a finding that the plaintiff has got justifiable cause to live separate from her husband, her right to maintenance being absolute u/s. 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the present suit is bound to be decreed.

( 6 ) BEFORE dealing with the factual questions involved in this case, we would like to deal with the legal questions raised by Mr. Rath, the learned counsel for the appellant. As already indicated his contention is that irrespective of any justification for the plaintiff to live separate from her husband, the husband is bound to maintain the wife as provided under S. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Mainten