Present : De Sampayo J. PATHUMMA   v.   CASSIM.

124-C. R. Colombo, 65,913.

Muhammadan     law-Claim for maggar and kaikuli-Is separation      a defence ?-Kaikuli spent for the sustenance of marriage.                        

The     fact     that     a     Muhammadan     wife     wilfully     separated     herself from her husband and refused to return to him was held not a defence against a claim by the wife against her husband for maggar or  kaikuli.

" Dowry or kaikuli is held in trust by a husband for the wife, and cannot be withheld on the ground that it has been spent for the sustenance of the marriage. It may, perhaps, be satisfied if the wife should willingly accept from the husband jewellery or any other thing in lieu of money. "

THE facts appear from the judgment.

Abdul Cader, for defendant, appellant.-Kaikuli as such is unknown to Muhammadan law proper, and is not even referred to in the text books. In Ceylon it has been held that dowry, or seethanam, paid to the husband cannot be reclaimed, even if the term kaikuli is used in that connection. In Saibo v. Saibo 1 this Court has held that where in a deed of donation both term