JUDGMENT

Harries, C J - This is Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of a learned Single Judge reversing an appellate decree of the learned District Judge of Delhi and decreeing the plaintiff's suit for dissolution of her marriage. The plaintiff Mt. Akbari Begum brought a suit against her husband Zafar Hussain for dissolution of her marriage under Section 2, Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. The Court of first instance granted the plaintiff a decree on the grounds that (1) the husband had neglected to provide for his wife's maintenance for a period of two years; (2) that the husband had failed to perform, "without reasonable cause, his marital obligations for a period of three years; (3) that he had actually assaulted his wife and made her life miserable by cruelty; and (4) that he had more than one wife and that he did not treat the plaintiff in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran.

2. The husband preferred an appeal to the Court of the learned District Judge, Delhi. The learned District Judge came to entirely different conclusions on the various issues which had been framed. He held that the husband had not failed without reasonable cause to perform his marital obligations and that he had not assaulted the wife nor had been guilty of cruelty nor had misbehaved towards her in any way. On the question as to whether the husband had failed to maintain his wife for a period of two years the learned District Judge held that on 15th December 1936 the husband had sent Rs. 20 to his wife and that he had sent a further sum of Rs. 50 by means of a crossed cheque on 3rd March 1937. He found that the letter containing the crossed cheque was refused by the wife. It is to be observed that the crossed cheque was refused more than two years before the date of the suit. Nevertheless, the learned District Judge found that the husband did not fail to provide maintenance for the wife for a period of two years. He appears to have thought, that if the wife refused the money which he sent to her, then there was no point in sending any further sum and much can be said for that view of the facts of this case. However, it is clear that for a period of about two years and four months previous to the suit the husband had sent no money to his wife and neither had he provided for her in any other way.

3. The learned Single Judge was of course bound to accept the findings of fact of the learned District Judge as they were based on evidence. The learned Single Judge, however, was of opinion that even on the facts as found the husband had failed to maintain his wife for a period of over two years and that that being so, the wife was entitled to a divorce by reason of Section 2, Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (Act 8 of 1939). The material-portions of this section are as follows:

A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of the following grounds, namely....

(ii) That the husband has neglected or failed to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years....

(iv) That the husband has failed to perform without reasonable cause his marital obligations for a period of three years.

4. The view taken of this section by the learned Single Judge was that the husband was bound in all cases to maintain his wife and if he failed to do so, the wife was entitled to bring a suit for divorce even if she herself was at fault and was really the cause of the husband refusing to maintain her. The learn, ed Single Judge appears to have thought that this section casts upon the husband an absolute duty to maintain his wife and any failure in that duty would be a ground for divorce, g. The learned Judge pointed out that the failure by the husband to perform his marital obligations is only a ground for divorce if such failure is without reasonable cause. He laid great emphasis on the fact that the phrase "without reasonable cause" does not appear in el. (ii) and that the word