Order.-The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissing the application is unsustainable. According to the admitted custom of the community to which the parties belong, a man, after marriage, lives in the wife’s family house, and becomes a part of it. He manages the properties of his wife and mother-in-law and should consider herself as a member of that family. The respondent’s case is that on account of misunderstandings and exchange of words he went away from his wife’s house to Kanappamendal and has been living there ever since. It is not his case that the petitioner, or her mother had made it irksome or impossible for him, to live with his wife. Therefore the desertion is by the respondent and it is not a case of the wife driving out the husband from her roof. If the custom of the community which has been recognised as legally enforceable is to be accepted, then the respondent has to look after the wife by living in her house, and if he does not do so, he will be liable to an order of maintenance under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore I direct that that if the respondent returns to the petitioner’s house before 16th January, 1951 and lives there, as he used to do looking after the properties, tending the goats and sheep, and augmenting the income, then he will not be liable to pay any maintenance. In default of the respondent doing so, he will be bound to pay a sum of Rs.10 per month to the petitioner as maintenance. V.S.