MALIK, CJ.:- This appeal was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 7-11-1946, against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Moradabad directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that the Court of the learned Civil Judge of Moradabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

2. The plaintiff, Chandrawati, was married to Lala Suraj Narain in the year 1927 in Moradabad. She lived with her husband for a period of ten years and was thereafter turned out by her husband, who, it is alleged, had started illtreating her and had become a man of bad character. She started living with her mother-in-law but the mother-in-law died in 1943. The defendant, the husband of the plaintiff, had by then shifted to Delhi and the plaintiff went to Delhi to live with him, but she was again turned out and she came back to Moradabad. In October, 1944, the defendant remarried.

The plaintiff filed the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, in the year 1946 claiming arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/-per mensem, the claim being for Rs.12,800/-, for return of certain ornaments valued at Rs.10,000/-, and for future maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per mensem. The suit was filed in forma pauperis. The leave was granted by the learned Judge and the suit was registered.

3. In the written statement the defendant took up the plea that as he was living in Delhi and the plaintiff had alleged that he had turned her out a second time when she went to Delhi to live with him, the cause of action must be deemed to have arisen in Delhi and the Moradabad court had, therefore, no jurisdiction.

4. The learned Judge held in favour of the defendant and directed the return of the plaint as mentioned above.

5. The plaintiff filed First Appeal from Order No.268 of 1946 against the order returning the plaint and made several attempts to serve the defendant with notice of the appeal. Notices were sent to an address which was given in the written statement. Ultimately the Court directed substituted service by publication of the summons in the Hindustan Times. After such publication the appeal came up before a Bench of this Court on 10-2-1949, and as the respondent did not appear the Court heard the plaintiff-appellant and came to the conclusion that a part of the cause of action for maintenance arose at the place where the marriage had taken place and under S.20, Civil P.C. the Moradabad court had, therefore, jurisdiction. The order of the lower Court was set aside and the case was sent back to that Court for being tried according to law.

6. The learned Judge thereafter heard the case and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff on 30-8-1949. On the 19-8-1949, before the lower Court had decreed the plaintiffs suit, an application was filed by Suraj Narain defendant, which was registered as Civil Miscellaneous No.184 of 1949, for setting aside the ex parte order dated 10-2-1949. Notice of this application was issued on the same day by a learned single Judge, but before that application could be heard and disposed of, the lower Court passed the decree dated 30-8-1949.

On 3-1-1951, when the application came up for hearing before the same Bench which had passed the order of 10-2-1949, the Bench was of the opinion that it was possible that the applicant might not have come to know of the hearing of the appeal in this Court, accepted his statement in that regard and vacated the order of 10-2-1949, on payment of a sum of Rs.200/- within one month. Presumably this amount was paid within the time allowed as no complaint of non-payment has been made before us.

As a result of the order of the 3-1-1951, First Appeal from Order No.268 of 1946 was restored to its original number and has come up before us today for decision. It was listed on a previous occasion on 4-5-1954, but as there was some talk of compromise we gave the parties time to settle their disputes, if possible, out of Court. No settlement has been arrived at and