JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a defendants second appeal arising from a suit for maintenance. 2. The husband is the appellant and the wife is the respondent. The trial court had dismissed the suit but the lower appellate court has decreed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. 3. The plaintiffs case was that the parties were married sometime about thirty years before the institution of the suit and the amount of mahar settled was Rs. 535/4/-. A son, Shakir Ali, was born about twenty-two years ago, but for the last seven or eight years there was some difference between the defendant and the son Shakir Ali; that for the last two or three years the habits of the defendant were changed; and he had started having drinks and illicit connections with market women or prostitutes and beating the plaintiff and had stopped paying any house-hold expenses. About a year ago, she was turned out of the house by the defendant, and therefore she started living with her son Shakir Ali. The plaintiff then filed a criminal proceeding u/s; 488, Cr. P. C. for maintenance; that the said proceeding was however compromised due to the intervention of some well-wishers and the plaintiff again went to live with the defendant; that about a month thereafter the defendants habits again became bad and he stopped paying the house-hold expenses and that about a month and a half before the filing of the suit the defendant one day came back home drunk, and when the plaintiff asked for house-hold expenses the defendant was very angry and abused, beat, and turned the plaintiff out of the house. It was then alleged that the defendant was employed in the stores department of the North Eastern Railway as a Khalasi and that his pay was Rupees 160/- per month at that time and that besides the same he had about five bighas of agricultural land which yielded good income. On these pleas the plaintiff claimed Rs. 60/- per month as maintenance. The relief claimed was for a direction to the defendant to pay the plaintiff maintenance at the rate of Rupees 60/- per month. 4. On these pleas the plaintiff claimed Rs. 60/- per month as maintenance. The relief claimed was for a direction to the defendant to pay the plaintiff maintenance at the rate of Rupees 60/- per month. 4. The defendant besides denying the plaint allegations made counter allegations against the plaintiff and particularly pleaded in the additional pleas that when the plaintiff refused to join the defendant in spite of his best efforts, he served a notice dated 7th July 1962 on the plaintiff calling upon her to come back, that the plaintiff joined the defendant some four or five months after that notice but again she indulged in her old habit of sending things away to her brothers and when the defendant asked her not to do so, she locked the defendants house and left on 18th May 1966; that thereafter on 22nd July 1969 the defendant divorced the plaintiff before witnesses of which due information was given by registered notice and that in reply to the plaintiffs notice dated 11th Aug., 1969 the defendant had by notice dated 29th Aug., 1969 also informed the plaintiff that she had been divorced. The amount of dower was disputed and it was stated that it was Rs. 35/4/-and not Rs. 535/4/-. This written statement is dated 29/31st Jan. 1972 and was filed on 31st Jan., 1972. 5. By a replication the plaintiff contended that the plea of divorce was wholly false. The other pleas raised in the written statement were also denied. It was, however, stated that in reply to the plaintiffs notice dated 11th Aug., 1969 the defendant had wrongly that he had divorced her on 22nd July, 1969. It was reasserted that the allegation of divorce having been given on 22nd of July 1969, was false. With regard to the amount of dower it was reasserted that it was Rs. 535/4/-. 6. The following were the issues framed by the trial court : 1. Whether the defendant has divorced the plaintiff on 22-7-69 as alleged by defendant? If so, its effect. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the maintenance? If so to what amount. 3. Whether the suit is maintainable? 4. Whether the suit is barred by Section 11, C. P. C.? 5. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled? 7. Whether the defendant has divorced the plaintiff on 22-7-69 as alleged by defendant? If so, its effect. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the maintenance? If so to what amount. 3. Whether the suit is maintainable? 4. Whether the suit is barred by Section 11, C. P. C.? 5. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled? 7. The trial court negatived the plea of res judicata raised by issue No. 4 and held on issue No. 1 that the divorce as alleged by the defendant had been proved. Under issue No. 3, it was held that the suit was not maintainable because maintenance was not payable beyond the period of iddat and on issue No 2, the plaintiff not having claimed the maintenance for the period of iddat, she was not entitled to any maintenance. With these findings the trial court dismissed the suit. 8. Before the lower appellate court, apart from the plea of res judicata on the basis of the proceedings under Section 488, Cr. P. C. which was negatived, the main point for consideration was whether the plaintiff had been divorced by the defendant on 22nd July, 1969. On this point the lower appellate court found that the defendant had not produced the copy of the notice alleged to have been given by registered post on 22nd July 1969 intimating the appellant about the divorce, and also found that in Ex. A-4 the defendant had mentioned that the information of the divorce on 22nd July 1969, had been given to the plaintiff by ordinary post, and on the basis oi this material the lower appellate court held that the story of giving registered notice of divorce was false. The lower appellate court then considered the evidence of the plaintiff wherein she had denied having received any information of the alleged divorce and also referred to other evidence and came to the conclusion that "it cannot be taken that the respondent had divorced the appellant 'as yet. " 9. Having come to this conclusion the lower appellate court examined the means of the husband and allowing the appeal decreed the suit and directed the husband to provide the wife with maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. 10. " 9. Having come to this conclusion the lower appellate court examined the means of the husband and allowing the appeal decreed the suit and directed the husband to provide the wife with maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant urged before me that whether or not the respondent wife had been divorced by the appellant, as alleged by him, on 22nd July 1969, and whether information of the same had been given to her by registered post or otherwise or not given at all, the raising of the plea of divorce by the husband in his written statement in the suit by itself amounts to the giving of divorce to the wife according to Muslim Law. For this proposition the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the case of Wahab Ali v. Qamrobi, AIR 1951 Hyd 117, in which a learned single Judge of Hyderabad High Court held that where in a proceeding started under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by a mohammedan wife against her husband for maintenance, the husband states in his written statement that he had already divorced his wife, although the court comes to the conclusion that the plea of divorce raised by the husband is not proved, yet the making of such a statement in the written statement itself operates from the moment that it is made, as an expression of divorce by the husband. This case was followed by learned single Judge of this court in 1967 All WR (H'C) 217 (1), and this proposition is also so stated in Mullas Principles of Mohammedan Law. The two cases arose in proceedings for a maintenance under the Cr. P. C. 11. The present case, however, arises from a regular suit in a civil court, the trial of which is governed by the provisions of the Civil P. C. The defendant appellant raised a plea in the written statement to the effect that he had divorced the plaintiff respondent on 22nd July 1969. That plea gave rise to a specific issue. "Whether the defendant has divorced the plaintiff on 22nd July, 1969 as alleged by defendant? if so, its effect." The lower appellate court found the plea to be incorrect. That plea gave rise to a specific issue. "Whether the defendant has divorced the plaintiff on 22nd July, 1969 as alleged by defendant? if so, its effect." The lower appellate court found the plea to be incorrect. The defendant did not plead in reply to the plaintiffs suit for maintenance that he had under the law an absolute right of divorcing the plaintiff at any time that he liked and that although he had already divorced for on 22nd July 1969, yet in case the court found that allegation to be not proved, he does hereby that is, by the written statement, divorce the plaintiff and that she is therefore not entitled to any maintenance. In the absence of any such plea in the written statement it is not possible to give any credence to the case now set up by the learned counsel for the defendant appellant for the first time in the second appeal in this court. 12. There are other difficulties in accepting the plea now sought to be raised by the appellant. Under the Mohamedan Law, a wife is entitled to maintenance during the period of Iddat after divorce and in case of an informal divorce like the one given by a plea in a written statement filed in the court, the divorce would be revocable during the period of iddat. The suit having been filed earlier, it would give rise to a fresh cause of action during the pendency of the suit and if the plea is allowed to be taken by the -written statement, the plaintiff would be entitled to amend the plaint. All this would give rise to interminable complications and make it impossible for the suit to be decided. It is, therefore, not possible to entertain the plea raised by the learned counsel for the defendant appellant at this stage. 13. The finding of the lower appellate court that no divorce was proved to have been given on 22nd July 1969, has not been seriously assailed before me. 14. No other point was pressed before me. 15. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.