C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) SINCE both these appeals arise out of O. S. No. 67 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, they are being disposed of by a common Judgment. For the sake of convenience I would hereinafter refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the trial Court. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS, who are the appellants in A. S. No. 859 of 1988 and respondents in A. S. No. 2561 of 1986 filed the suit against the respondents in A. S. No. 859 of 1988, as indigent persons, seeking recovery of Rs. 40,000/- towards the value of the gold ornaments of 25 tolas belonging to the first plaintiff, Rs. 5,000/- towards the value of Sare Samans of 1st plaintiff, Rs. 5,000/- towards provision for residence of the plaintiffs and past and future maintenance at Rs. 1,000/- per month from May, 1980 with a charge over the properties in the plaint A and B schedules. ( 3 ) THE case, in brief, of the plaintiffs is that defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of 4th defendant and they are all members of a Hindu joint family possessing the properties specified in the plaint A and B schedules. Though defendants 1 to 3 are divided in mess, they are cultivating the lands belonging to the family jointly. After the death of his wife, 4th defendant is living in the houses of defendants 1 to 3 in turn for a period of four months in a year in the house of each defendants 1 to 3. 1st defendant, who married Siva Laxmi begot two daughters through her and had subsequent to the death of, Siva Laxmi married the 1st plaintiff as per caste custom, and begot the 2nd plaintiff. At the time of her marriage with the 1st defendant, 1st plaintiff was given 10 tolas of gold ornaments, described in the plaint c schedule, besides Sare Samans worth about Rs. 5,000/ -. After the birth of the 2nd plaintiff, 1st defendant started illtreating the 1st plaintiff and drove her out of the house, after removing all her gold ornaments and retaining her Sare Samans. Hence the suit. 1st defendant filed his written statement admitting the relationship between him and the other defendants. 5,000/ -. After the birth of the 2nd plaintiff, 1st defendant started illtreating the 1st plaintiff and drove her out of the house, after removing all her gold ornaments and retaining her Sare Samans. Hence the suit. 1st defendant filed his written statement admitting the relationship between him and the other defendants. He denied that he and other defendants are members of a joint family and alleged that the properties shown in the plaint A and B schedules are the separate and self-acquired properties of his father, the 4th defendant and that after the death of his wife Siva Laxmi, he brought the 1st plaintiff in Maru Manumu form (2nd marriage), without undergoing the ceremonies of marriage and gave her ten tolas of gold Teega, but 1st plaintiff stayed with him only for one month and later deserted him. He denied the paternity of 2nd plaintiff and his liability to maintain the plaintiffs. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a common written statement supporting the case of the 1st defendant and contending that there are no joint family properties between them and defendant 1 and 4. 4th defendant filed a separate written statement contending that all the properties shown in the plaint A and B schedules are his self-acquired properties. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as 9 issues for trial. In support of their case plaintiffs examined five witnesses including 1st plaintiff and marked Exs. A1 to A7. In support of their case defendants examined seven witnesses including defendants 1 and 4 and marked Exs. B1 to B76. The trial Court held that as there is no evidence to show that the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and her 1st husband was dissolved by a decree of divorce, her marriage with the 1st defendant is void though she (1st plaintiff) and 1st defendant lived together as husband and wife and begot the 2nd plaintiff, and that all the defendants are members of a Hindu joint family, and that properties covered by Exs. B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29 sale deeds standing in the name of 1st defendant only are the joint family properties and the rest of the items mentioned in the schedules A and B are not the joint family properties and are the self-acquired properties of 4th defendant, and that 1st plaintiff is only entitled to recover Rs. 40,000/- from 1st defendant towards the value of the gold ornaments but is not entitled to seek maintenance or separate residence, and that 2nd plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 1,000/- towards past maintenance and Rs. 400/- towards provision for residence and Rs. 250/- per month towards future maintenance besides Rs. 100/- per month towards provision for residence with a charge over the properties covered by Exs. B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29 and passed a decree accordingly. Aggrieved by the dismissal of her claim for maintenance and separate residence, 1st plaintiff preferred A. S. No. 859 of 1988 and aggrieved by the trial Court s decree creating a charge over the properties covered by Exs. B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29, 4th defendant preferred A. S. No. 2561 of 1986. ( 4 ) SINCE the 1st defendant did not question the valuation of the property shown in the plaint c" schedule or the finding of the Court below that 1st plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 40,000/- from him towards the value of the gold ornaments mentioned in the plaint C schedule, that finding has become final. So the only point for consideration in these appeals is to what amount of maintenance, if any, is the 1st plaintiff entitled to, and if plaintiffs are entitled to claim charge on the properties covered by Exs. B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29? ( 5 ) SINCE 4th defendant died in August, 1986, on a petition in C. M. P. No. 8754 of 1988 alleging that by virtue of a Will executed by 4th defendant, defendants 1 to 3 were given a life estate and the vested remainder is given to the grand children, the grand children of the 4th defendant were also brought on record as his legal representative by the order dated 31-10-1988. Since the Will of 4th defendant was not produced before the Court, and since this Court did not go into the truth, validity and genuineness of the Will said to have been executed by 4th defendant, the truth and genuineness of the Will said to have been executed by 4th defendant should be deemed to be at large. Since the Will of 4th defendant was not produced before the Court, and since this Court did not go into the truth, validity and genuineness of the Will said to have been executed by 4th defendant, the truth and genuineness of the Will said to have been executed by 4th defendant should be deemed to be at large. ( 6 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is when 1st defendant admitted his having married the 1st plaintiff and his living with her for some time, and when 1st defendant did not even take a plea that the marriage between him and 1st plaintiff is void, the Court below was in error in holding that the marriage between the 1st defendant and 1st plaintiff is void, merely on the statement of 1st plaintiff as P. W. 1 that she was married to Adari Chandriah and took customary divorce from him before her marriage with the 1st defendant. The contention of the learned counsel for defendants is that since there is nothing on record to show that the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and her first husband Adari Chandriah was dissolved by a decree of divorce, the trial Court rightly held that the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant is void and so there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding. ( 7 ) THERE is no plea in the written statement of either 1st defendant or defendants 2 to 4 that the marriage between the 1st defendant and 1st plaintiff is void because of the 1st plaintiff not obtaining divorce from her first husband. In fact 1st defendant who admitted that he took 1st plaintiff as his 2nd wife did not take a plea that his marriage is void for the 1st plaintiff not obtaining divorce from Adari Chandriah, her former husband, through Court. In view thereof it has to be inferred that he had knowledge about the customary divorce between the 1st plaintiff and her first husband. The question as to whether there is customary divorce in a particular caste is not a pure question of law. It is predominantly a question of fact. In view thereof it has to be inferred that he had knowledge about the customary divorce between the 1st plaintiff and her first husband. The question as to whether there is customary divorce in a particular caste is not a pure question of law. It is predominantly a question of fact. So, for a Court to give a finding on the existence or otherwise of a customary divorce, which is expressly saved by Section 29 (2) of Hindu Marriage Act, unless that custom is put in issue and the parties are given an opportunity to adduce evidence, Court cannot give findings on the existence or otherwise of such custom on mere assumptions. In this case 1st defendant admitted that he took the 1st plaintiff in manu Manuvu (second marriage ). After she left his society he admittedly filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights against 1st plaintiff. If there was no customary divorce in Gowra community in Anakapalli region, to which the parties belong to, the question of 1st defendant filing a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights against 1st plaintiff would not arise. The fact that 1st defendant filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights shows that he treated the marriage between him and the 1st defendant as a valid marriage. In fact there was no scope for the plaintiffs knowing that defendants have disputed the fact that there is customary divorce in their community before the trial Court pronounced its Judgment. In fact if the defendants wanted to dispute the factum of existence of customary divorce among the community to which they belong, 1st defendant would have, after P. W. 1 stated that she married 1st defendant after obtaining customary divorce from Adari Chandriah, filed a petition seeking amendment of his written statement by taking a plea that the marriage between him and 1st plaintiff is void because there is no customary divorce in their community. When defendants did not deny the existence of customary divorce in their community, question of plaintiffs adducing evidence regarding customary divorce among Gowras does not arise. When defendants did not deny the existence of customary divorce in their community, question of plaintiffs adducing evidence regarding customary divorce among Gowras does not arise. In fact, had the 1st plaintiff as P. W. 1 not stated about her earlier marriage with Adari Chandriah and the customary divorce between her and Adari Chandriah, there was no scope for the trial Court finding the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant is void on the ground of lack of evidence regarding customary divorce in their community. In fact the trial Court failed to keep in view the fact that when defendants did not dispute the custom spoken to by the 1st plaintiff in her evidence as P. W. 1, it should be deemed to have been admitted. It is well known that no evidence is required on admitted facts. Therefore the finding of the Court below that due to lack of evidence regarding customary divorce in their community the marriage between 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant is void is liable to be set aside and is set aside. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties the trial Court held that there was a marriage between the 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant and that 2nd plaintiff was sired by the 1st defendant. That finding is not challenged by the 1st defendant. So it is clear that 1st plaintiff is the wife and 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of 1st defendant. ( 8 ) UNFOUNDED allegation of unchastity is a ground for claiming separate maintenance by a wife against her husband. Since 1st defendant failed to establish the unchastity attributed to 1st plaintiff, she is entitled to claim separate maintenance. Since 2nd plaintiff is minor, daughter of 1st defendant, she is entitled to seek maintenance for 1st defendant. Thus both plaintiffs are entitled to seek maintenance from the 1st defendant. ( 9 ) COMING to the question as to whether the properties covered by Exs. B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29 are the joint family properties as held by the trial Court or not, the evidence of 4th defendant as DW. Thus both plaintiffs are entitled to seek maintenance from the 1st defendant. ( 9 ) COMING to the question as to whether the properties covered by Exs. B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29 are the joint family properties as held by the trial Court or not, the evidence of 4th defendant as DW. 6 is that his paternal grand father sold away his house and shared the money with his sons, and that his father, after taking his share of the money given by his grand father, migrated to Anakapally and started cultivating lands on sharing system at Anakapally and purchased land from A. Gangu Naidu under Exs. B27 for Rs. 400/- and Ex. B12 for Rs. 6,000/- after separating from his sons, but admitted that his first son was born by the time he purchased the land covered by Ex. B14. Since defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of 4th defendant, the mere fact that the documents are obtained in the name of 4th defendant, who is the father, by itself would not make them the self-acquired properties of the father. The question for determination would be whether the consideration for the purchase of those properties was met from the joint family funds or income from joint exertions of defendants 1 to 4 or from the money earned by the 4th defendant in his individual capacity. Father of the 4th defendant admittedly took money from his father i. e. , the grand father of the 4th defendant, and started cultivating the lands along with the 4th defendant. It means that the 4th defendant and his father jointly exerted and earned some more money, besides his having the benefit of the funds obtained by his father from his father. The contention of defendants that defendants 1 to 3 were only roaming around the streets, and were not doing any work and that only 4th defendant exerted himself and earned money and properties, appears unnatural. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the properties covered by Exs. B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29 are the joint family properties needs no interference and so I also hold that the properties covered by Exs. B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29 are the joint family properties of the defendants. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the properties covered by Exs. B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29 are the joint family properties needs no interference and so I also hold that the properties covered by Exs. B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29 are the joint family properties of the defendants. ( 10 ) THE maintenance awarded to the 2nd plaintiff is not questioned either by the 1st defendant or the 4th defendant. Regarding the maintenance payable to 1st plaintiff, I am of the opinion that she is also entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards past maintenance and Rs. 400/- towards provision for residence as was awarded to the 2nd plaintiff. Keeping in view the status of the parties and the amount of maintenance awarded to the 2nd plaintiff and the properties held by the family, 1st plaintiff can be awarded Rs. 350/- per month towards future maintenance and Rs. 150/- towards provision for residence from 1-1-1986 with charge over the 1/4th share of the 1st defendant in the properties covered by Exs. B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29. The point is answered accordingly. ( 11 ) IN the result, A. S. No. 2561 of 1986 is dismissed and A. S. No. 859 of 1988 is allowed in part. 1st plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards past maintenance, Rs. 400/- towards provision for residence and Rs. 350/- towards future maintenance and Rs. 150/- per month towards provision for residence from 1-1-1986 with charge over 1/4th share of the properties covered by Exs. B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29. No costs.