out of which 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken by her husband, who is the appellant herein, for the purpose of pledging the same, thereafter it was not returned. Further she had to undergo certain treatment for her illness and delivery expenses were not met by the appellant. So she claimed for return of gold ornaments of 20 sovereigns or its value of Rs.2,29,600/- and Rs.15,000/- towards delivery expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards treatment expenses and also Rs.7,000/- and Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance for 7½ months for herself and the child respectively. These allegations were denied by the respondent/appellant herein. In order to prove the case of the respondents, the first respondent herself was examined as PW1 and her father was examined as PW2 and the goldsmith, who manufactured the gold ornaments and given was examined as PW4 and one witness was examined as PW3 who attended the marriage and the betrothal. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 will go to show that at the time of marriage 35½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were given and 3½ sovereigns was fixed as meher. Though it was admitted by PWs 1 and 2 that in the Mujahideen sect of Muslims there was no practice of demanding dowry, but at time of marriage gold ornaments used to be given to the girl children who were given in marriage and that was the practice. The appellant also has no case that no gold ornaments were given.
