JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. The respondent is the wife of the appellant and brought a suit for her dower on the allegation that the plaintiff had divorced her. On the day following the institution of that suit the plaintiff-appellant brought the present suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The suit of the wife was dismissed on the ground that the alleged divorce was not proved and that no demand had been made for dower. The Court of first instance decreed the appellant's suit for restitution of conjugal rights, but the lower appellate Court has dismissed it, on the ground that as there was no specification as to whether the dower was prompt or deferred, a portion of the dower must be held to be prompt, and that as this portion of the dower was neither paid nor tendered, the plaintiff could not claim restitution of conjugal rights. This view of the learned Judge is in accordance with the ruling of this Court in Wilayat Husain v. Allah Rakhi,[1880] I.L.R., 2 All., 831. In that case it was held that a suit against a wife for restitution of conjugal rights even after consummation of marriage cannot be maintained where the wife's dower is prompt, and has not been paid; In the present case one-third of the dower was admittedly prompt, and as it is also admitted that it has remained unpaid, the wife is entitled to refuse herself to the husband and the latter cannot claim restitution of conjugal rights. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.