Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

    Tulsha v. Gopal Rai

    Straigat, Offg. C.J and Brodhurst, J.:— These two appeals, 111 and 139, are from a single decree of the Subordinate, Judge of Saharanpur, and they may conveniently be disposed of together. There is no need to recapitulate the facts of the case, a they are fully set forth in the judgment of the Court below Taking Appeal No. 139 first, we do not feel ourselves pressed by the defendant-appellant's pleas therein. Seeing that the plaintiff Tulsha, as mother, was the natural guardian of the other two plaintiffs, and that it was proper for them to reside with and be provided for by her, and the common maintenance being, so to speak, a joint matter, we are not prepared to hold, at any rate at this stage of the litigation, that the suit was open to objection on the ground of misjoinder ff parties and causes of action. Nor, looking to the peculiar circumstances of this family, which make Tulsha the most natural and proper person to arrange the marriages of the two minor plaintiffs, are we disposed to hold that the prayer for marriage expenses was improperly added. At the time the suit was brought both the girls were of a marriageable age, and it was only in accordance with Hindu Law that a sum of money suitable to their condition and the custom of their family should be secured against their marriage taking place. The other pleas in No. 139 do not appear to us to have any force, and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

    With regard to Appeal 111 we think that the Subordinate Judge should have separated the maintenance to which he considered the three plaintiffs respectively entitled, and that as to the two minor plaintiffs he should have declared that such maintenance would cease upon their marriage. Moreover it seems to us that Rs. 15 was a some what low figure at which to place the monthly allowance for all the three persons, and we therefore so far allow this appeal, that the Subordinate Judge's decree will be modified to thing extent, that the plaintiff Tulsha will be declared entitled to a monthly allowance of Rs. 15, and the two minor plaintiffs to a monthly allowance of Rs. 5 each, such latter allowance to cease in either case upon marriage. The amount of arrears recoverable will, so far as Tulsha is concerned, stand as decreed by the Subordinate Judge, but as regards the minor plaintiffs, they will be entitled to receive Rs. 180 each for arrears. As regards the amount allowed for marriage expenses by the Court below, we shall not interfere there will be no order as to costs in the Appeal 139.

    Appeal allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Tulsha v. Gopal Rai
    (Jul 14, 1884)