Judgment.- This petition raises an interesting question as to whether a Muslim wife divorced by an irrevocable thalak, at Karur, has a right to sue for the interim maintenance amount due and return of her clothes and jewels, at Tanjore, her normal place of residence at the time when the thalak was pronounced and the place at which the thalak was made known to her. The lower Court held that part of the cause of action arose at Tanjore because the irrevocable thalak was communicated to her when she was living at that place; and because the husband was bound to seek out the wife, who was resident at Tanjore and return to her her jewels and clothes there as soon as he pronounced the irrevocable thalak and communicated it. There is also an implied assumption in the lower Court’s order that, in any event, the wife could bring the suit on the cause of action at Tanjore, where she was normally living, the moment her rights to the clothes and jewels on the irrevocable thalak arose. Of course, as urged by Mr. Amudachari, for the husband, it would be most unreasonable to contend that a Muslim husband, the moment he pronounces an irrecoverable thalak, is bound to carry the divorced wife’s clothes and jewels in a bundle and seek her out wherever she is and deliver them to her. That will, indeed, be an effective check on divorce, perhaps too effective a check. I do not think that the Mahommedan Law, or any other law, contemplates such an onerous obligation on the part of the divorced husband, especially when the right to divorce the wife is granted to him at his will and pleasure and not for any justifiable reason. Mr. Raman, for the wife, also does not seriously contend for this position. Mr. Amudachari next urged that an irrevocable thalak operates at once, and at the place where it is pronounced, and need not be even communicated to the wife, and that, therefore, it is unreasonable to attach any significance to the husband’s letter to Tanjore communicating the divorce to the wife. Mr. Amudachari next urged that an irrevocable thalak operates at once, and at the place where it is pronounced, and need not be even communicated to the wife, and that, therefore, it is unreasonable to attach any significance to the husband’s letter to Tanjore communicating the divorce to the wife. He relied upon a ruling in Ahmed Kasim Molla v. Khatun Bibi1, where it has been definitely stated that any Mahomedan of a sane mind who has attained puberty can divorce his wife without assigning any cause, and can do so even in the absence of the wife, and that the irrevocable thalak will take effect forthwith without any communication to her, even though she many not be aware of it all. But that, in my opinion, will not help Mr. Amudachari’s client in this case. An irrevocable thalak only terminates the wife’s right to conjugal relationship, and makes the venue for filing a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, if any, subsist at the place where the irrevocable thalak is pronounced. But the right to interim maintenance and the clothes and jewels arises out of an irrevocable thalak and hence stands on a different footing. As held in Tulsiman v. Abdul Latif Mia2, the divorced wife can bring the suit in respect of her prompt dower and, obviously therefore, also for her clothes and jewels at the place where she resides at the time of the divorce and receives notice thereof. So, the plaintiff could bring the suit in the Tanjore Court, as she did, in respect of her interim maintenance during the intervening period allowed under the Mahomedan Law, and her clothes and jewels. So there is no reason to interfere with the lower Court’s order. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed; but, in the peculiar circumstances without costs, as it seems to me to have been filed because of the observations of the lower Court that the husband was bound to take the jewels and clothes of the wife, seeking her out wherever she was, and deliver them. K.S. ----- Petition dismissed.