JUDGMENT 1. We see no reason for differing from the learned Judge who disbelieved the evidence of the plaintiffs mother and their witness, Subba Reddi, as to the removal of the thali and the payment to her of Rs. 50 the parisam. The evidence of the two witnesses is insufficient to prove that, there is a custom among the Vellalas which permits divorce. The decision in Virasangappa v. Rudrappa 8 M. 440 : 9 Ind. Jur. 349 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 301 does not support the contention as it only decides that there is such a custom amongst Lingayats. It is clear from the Full Bench decision in Soundararajam v. Arunachalam Chetty 33 Ind. Cas. 858 : 39 M. 136 : 29 M.L.T. 793 at p. 816 : 2 L.W. 1247 at p. 1266 : 18 M.L.T. 552 at p. 568 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 31 that before the illegitimate sons of a Sudra can succeed, they must show that the connection between their parents was not adulterous. In the present case, it is admitted that their mother was married to Veeraswamy Mudaly before she joined the deceased Venkatachallam. it is argued that mere desertion by Veeraswamy of the plaintiffs mother and their separation for several years is sufficient to dissolve the marriage, but there is no authority for holding that a marriage is severed by mere desertion. Objection is taken to the rate of maintenance awarded. Having regard to the income of the properties and the claims of the various members of the family we think the rate allowed by the learned Judge is reasonable. 2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.