Order.-This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit filed by the respondents for two main reliefs, namely, maintenance, past and future and recovery of Rs. 225 being the value of certain stridhana properties belonging to the first respondent. The defendants who are the Petitioners before me are members of a joint Hindu family. The 1st defendant (1st petitioner) is the husband of the 1st plaintiff (1st respondent). The other two petitioners are the parents of the 1st petitioner. The suit was filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupattur. The 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant were married at Vengalapuram Village in Tirupattur taluk. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants conspired together to drive out the 1st plaintiff from her husband’s house and brought her on a pretext to Tirupattur and left her at her parent’s house in the village of Vengalapuram. On these facts it was stated in paragraph 9 of the plaint that the cause of action for the suit arose when the marriage took place at Vengalapuram in Tirupattur taluk and also when the defendants left and abandoned the plaintiffs at Vengalapuram. Subsequent to the filing of the written statement an objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that the District Munsif’s Court, Tirupattur, had no jurisdiction to try the suit, as the defendants were admittedly residents of Bangalore. In answer to this objection the plaintiffs stated that under section 20(c), Civil Procedure Code, a suit could be filed in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arose and in this case as the plaintiffs were abandoned at Vengalapuram within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Tirupattur District Munsif’s Court, the suit was maintainable in that Court. The learned District Munsif overruled the objection raised on behalf of the defendants and held that the suit was maintainable in his Court. He rested his conclusion on the allegation in the plaint that the plaintiffs were abandoned at Tirupattur. The defendants seek for a revision of this order. I agree with the learned District Munsif that the suit in so far as it is for the recovery of maintenance is maintainable in the Court at Tirupattur because certainly a part of the cause of action arose within its limits. The defendants seek for a revision of this order. I agree with the learned District Munsif that the suit in so far as it is for the recovery of maintenance is maintainable in the Court at Tirupattur because certainly a part of the cause of action arose within its limits. It was specifically alleged that the husband abandoned the plaintiffs at Tirupattur and abandonment could be certainly a part of the cause of action for a claim of maintenance. The learned counsel for the Petitioners cited to me the decision in Ramalinga Ayyar v. Jayalakshmi1. But it has no bearing on the facts of his case. In that case the marriage took place at Negapatam. The husband resided at Vellore and owing to the ill-treatment of her husband the wife ran away from Vellore to her father’s place at Palghat. Her father-in-law was residing at Mayavaram and she filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat against her husband for maintenance and against her father-in-law for the return of the stridhanam properties alleged to have been entrusted to him. It was held that the Palghat Court had no jurisdiction because the cause of action for the recovery of maintenance or for the re-delivery of the entrusted properties did not arise at Palghat. The learned Judges overruled the contention that the common law rule of the debtor seeking out the creditor could be applied in the circumstances of the case: that is to say, treating the husband as the debtor and the wife as the creditor. I do not see how this decision can help the petitioners in any manner. Mr. Kailasam the learned counsel for the respondents referred me to the decision of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., in Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Rajalakshmi2 where the learned Judge held that as the marriage formed a part of the cause of action in a suit for maintenance, the suit for maintenance can be instituted at the place where the parties were married. It suffices to say in this case that as the abandonment of the plaintiffs is alleged to have taken place within the local limits of the Tirupattur Court the suit filed in that Court is not bad for want of jurisdiction. The claim for the recovery of Rs. 225 being the value of the stridhanam properties of the plaintiffs stands differently. The claim for the recovery of Rs. 225 being the value of the stridhanam properties of the plaintiffs stands differently. The material allegation in respect of this claim is contained in paragraph 6 of the plaint which runs thus: “When the 1st defendant took the plaintiffs out of his residence at Bangalore for visiting his relations at Bowringpet the 1st plaintiff left all her stridhanam properties described in the schedule hereunder in the residence of the defendants and the defendants are now in possession and enjoyment of the same.” Admittedly, the residence of the defendants is in Bangalore and therefore the suit will not be maintainable in the Tirupattur Court for the recovery of the value of stridhanam properties left by the 1st plaintiff at Bangalore. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed to this extent but dismissed otherwise. No costs. K.C. ----- Petition allowed in part.