JUDGMENT

Bhide, J. - The plaintiff, Mt. Sham Kaur, who is a wife of the defendant Sardar Sher Singh, sued in this case for maintenance at Rs. 200 per mensem. According to the allegations in the plaint the plaintiff was married to the defendant some sixteen years before the suit and bore him a son two years later. The defendant had another wife who grew jealous as she had no male issue, and the defendant at her instance began to ill treat the plaintiff. The plaintiff's son was murdered when he was about six years of age and the plaintiff suspected her co-wife to be responsible for the murder. After the death of the plaintiff's son she was subjected to even greater ill treatment than before and was turned out of the house six months later. She began to live with her parents. Her father went several times with a panchayat to induce the defendant to give her maintenance and residence, but the defendant refused to do so and eventually the present suit was instituted.

2. The defendant denied the allegations and pleaded that the plaintiff was leading an immoral life and had left his house of her own accord. He expressed his willingness to take her back provided she led a chaste life. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit, found that the allegation of unchastity was not proved and that the defendant had refused to keep the plaintiff in his house without any justification. A decree for Rs. 80 per mensem by way of maintenance was, therefore, passed in favour of the plaintiff. From this decision the defendant has appealed.

3. The plaintiff's own-evidence shows that she herself left her husband's house after her son's death, probably on account of suspicions about the co-wife being responsible for the death of her son and consequent ill-treating towards her. There is no evidence to prove that she was actually ill-treated and turned out as alleged in the plaint. All that the plaintiff's witnesses have said is that the plaintiff left the defendant's house and that thereafter, the defendant refused to take her back, although her father approached him with a panchayat for the purpose several times.

4. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge has found the defendant's evidence as regards the plaintiff's alleged unchastity to be valueless and that evidence has not been laid stress on before us. It was, however, argued that the plaintiff's evidence as regards the defendant having refused to take her back in his house is also worthless and in the circumstances the plaintiff having herself left her husband's house without any justification is not entitled to claim any maintenance. I think this contention is justified. I am not impressed by the evidence produced by the plaintiff as regards the attempts made to induce the defendant to take her back in his house. According to the plaintiff's father's own statement the defendant refused to admit her in his house when she was taken there only two months after she had left it after her son's death, and although she went again four or five times, the defendant refused to listen to him (vide Narain Singh's statement at p. 26 of the printed record). No explanation whatsoever has been offered as to why the present claim was delayed for some eight years. If the plaintiff was really willing to go to the defendant she might have been expected to take some prompt action. When the present suit was lodged by the plaintiff the defendant offered to take the plaintiff back into his house and maintain her, but she refused to do so except on certain conditions as regards being given a house and furniture of the same kind as her co-wife. During the pendency of this appeal also an offer was made by the defendant to take her back, but when he went to her village for the purpose the plaintiff failed to avail herself of the offer on a flimsy excuse. In the circumstances I find it difficult to believe that the plaintiff has been genuinely anxious to live with the defendant and that the defendant has refused to al