JUDGMENT: 1. This is an appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff. She had instituted a suit for recovery of amount from defendant . her husband, which she had allegedly spent for marriage of their daughters. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant. 2. The facts are as follows - The plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of defendant. After the marriage, they lived together for a period of ten years. Thereafter, the defendant married with another woman and started residing separately. The plaintiff submits that she gave birth to five daughters out of the said wed-lock. It is contended by the plaintiff that since the time the defendant remarried, he never cared either for the plaintiff or the five daughters. The plaintiff was required to file application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.Code. The court had awarded maintenance of Rs.125/- per month to the plaintiff and Rs.200/- per month each for two daughters - Alka and Vandana. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant is in service and also owns 12 acres of land. The plaintiff submits that the defendant, as a father, was bound to perform the marriages of all five daughters. It was not possible for the plaintiff to spend for the marriages since she had no source of income. The plaintiff made a request to the defendant to pay the amount for incurring the expenditure for marriages. The defendant assured that he will pay the amount and asked the plaintiff to incur the loan for the time being. On this assurance, the plaintiff submits that, she had borrowed Rs.70,000/- from one Sanjay Tiple for the performance of marriage of daughter Alka. She had also borrowed Rs.60,000/- from one Shankar Raghatate for the marriage of Ratna and further she had borrowed Rs.65000/- from one Chandrakant Chafale for the marriage of Vandana. The plaintiff has to repay this amount and she, therefore, seeks a decree for Rs.2,20,000/-. 3. The defendant filed a written statement and he does not dispute that the plaintiff is his legally wedded wife and that they have five daughters out of wed-lock. The defendant denies that he never cared for the plaintiff or the daughters. The plaintiff has to repay this amount and she, therefore, seeks a decree for Rs.2,20,000/-. 3. The defendant filed a written statement and he does not dispute that the plaintiff is his legally wedded wife and that they have five daughters out of wed-lock. The defendant denies that he never cared for the plaintiff or the daughters. He denies that the plaintiff had incurred the loan as stated by her for the performance of marriage and that so much of amount was in fact spent in the marriage. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintenable. 4. On these pleadings, the learned judge of the trial court framed issues and found that the plaintiff had not actually incurred any loan and she was not entitled to a decree as prayed by her. 5. I have hard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 6. The following points arise for my consideration and I am recording the findings on them. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that for performance of the marriages of three daughters she had borrowed Rs.2,20,000/- from three persons as mentioned in the plaint ? ..... No. 2(a) Is the plaintiff alternatively entitled to reimbursement of reasonable expenses of marriage of three daughters from defendant . her husband ? ..... Yes. 2(b) If yes, Quantum ? ... Rs.75,000/- - R E A S O N S - 7. A few undisputed facts may be stated thus - The plaintiff and the defendant are still wife and husband respectively. Both the plaintiff and defendant are living separately since last more than 25 years. They have five daughters out of the said wed-lock. The plaintiff alone got married three daughters namely Alka, Ratna and Vandana. The plaintiff is claiming reimbursement of the amount spent for the marriage of the three daughters. 8. The plaintiff comes out with a case that she had performed marriages of these three daughters and for meeting the expenses she had to incur loan from three persons. The learned Civil Judge disbelieved the evidence of the plaintiff and her witnesses with regard to the borrowing of the money from them. 8. The plaintiff comes out with a case that she had performed marriages of these three daughters and for meeting the expenses she had to incur loan from three persons. The learned Civil Judge disbelieved the evidence of the plaintiff and her witnesses with regard to the borrowing of the money from them. The learned Civil Judge mainly has rejected the evidence of the plaintiff and her witnesses on the ground that the plaintiff has not returned the amount to these persons and they have not as yet initiated any action against her for recovery. The learned Civil Judge finds that under such circumstances such evidence of advancing of loan cannot be accepted. Further the plaintiff had failed to examine one of the lenders i.e. Chandrakant Chafle. The amount said to be lent is not paltry sum which one may forgo. It is also quite improbable that those persons would forgo the amount and yet depose supporting the case of the plaintiff. It is not shown that these persons are so rich that they can easily forgo such amount. It is not her case that all of them are related to her. The learned Civil Judge has, therefore, rightly refused to accept the theory of lending of money to the plaintiff by those witnesses. 9. The question as to whether plaintiff's suit should completely fail simply because the evidence of borrowing money from these persons is found to be not worthy of credit. We have seen that defendant is admittedly the father of the three daughters whom the plaintiff got married. Every father is under an obligation to maintain his daughters and even to get them married. The obligation to maintain the daughter and get her married is said to be personal in character and arises from the very existence of the relationship. Under the Hindu Law, a daughter is entitled to be maintained out of estate of her father even after the death of the father. In the instant case, the father is alive and admittedly has source of income from salary and agriculture land. A father who lives separately from his wife, therefore, cannot escape the liability to maintain his daughters. Here, it would be necessary to look into the definition of the word maintenance as given in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The word has been defined as follows - .maintenance. A father who lives separately from his wife, therefore, cannot escape the liability to maintain his daughters. Here, it would be necessary to look into the definition of the word maintenance as given in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The word has been defined as follows - .maintenance. includes - (i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment; (ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage; The definition is inclusive. It includes the provision of the reasonable expenses of and incident to marriage of daughter. It is thus clear that father, who has deserted his wife and daughters is also liable to make a provisions of reasonable expenses for the marriage of daughters. Thus, not under the old Hindu Law but under the codified Hindu Law also the father is bound to make such a provision as can be seen from the definition of word maintenance. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent had relied on a decision of Madras High Court reported AIR 1992 Madras 242 (R.Durairaj ..vs.. Seethalakshmiammal and ors.). The Madras High Court had made the following observations - “Where a suit was filed by he wife and daughter for maintenance and for marriage expenses of the daughter though both the plaintiffs haven filed the suit together, in the event of passing a decree for the marriage expenses of the unmarried daughter can that decree be passed only in favour of the daughter. Even if the daughter's marriage has taken place during the pendency of the suit, a decree could have been passed in her favour so that she could pay off any amount spent by the wife, her mother or anybody else for her marriage. However, if the wife had spent for the marriage of the daughter she should have pleaded in the plaint that she has done so and she should have also pleaded for what all the items of expenses for the marriage she has spent and what is the total amount she has spent. No such plea has been made by way of amendment of the plaint. It is not even prayed that a decree shall be passed in her favour. In this position no decree can be passed in favour of the wife plaintiff for the marriage expenses of the daughter. No such plea has been made by way of amendment of the plaint. It is not even prayed that a decree shall be passed in her favour. In this position no decree can be passed in favour of the wife plaintiff for the marriage expenses of the daughter. It is the fundamental principle in the law of pleadings that no amount of evidence can be looked upon in support of a plea having no foundation in the pleading, and a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings. Only because she has stated in the course of her evidence that she has spent for the marriage a decree cannot be passed in her favour. Apart from there being no pleadings, the evidence also is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that she has spent any definite amount either for jewels or for other expenses.. With respect, I find myself unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Madras High Court. In the instant case, the plaintiff who is the mother of daughters filed the suit. She has made a specific plea that she had incurred loans and had spent for the marriages of the daughters. The defendant admitted during the course of his examination before the court that his wife did spend for the marriages of his daughters. The Law envisages that a father is bound to make provision for the marriage expenses of the daughters as a part of maintenance. Therefore, if wife has spent for the performance of the marriage of the daughter, the husband would certainly be liable to reimburse the wife. He cannot escape his liability in any case. In the case at hand, the plaintiff has sought decree in her favour only and therefore, I see no impediment in passing the decree in favour of the plaintiff. 11. Now it is the case of the plaintiff that she got married her three daughters and spent large amount. If the evidence of defendant is seen, it would be clear that he admits that the plaintiff got married Ratna, Alka and Vandana. He states on oath that for Ratna's marriage, the plaintiff had spent Rs.1000/- to Rs.1200/-, Rs.500/- were spent for the marriage of Alka as it was performed under a tree at Kondnyapur and once again Rs.1000/- to Rs.1200/- were spent for the marriage of Vandana. He states on oath that for Ratna's marriage, the plaintiff had spent Rs.1000/- to Rs.1200/-, Rs.500/- were spent for the marriage of Alka as it was performed under a tree at Kondnyapur and once again Rs.1000/- to Rs.1200/- were spent for the marriage of Vandana. It is thus clear that the defendant admits that the plaintiff performed the marriages of daughters and she spent for it. The evidence of DW 1 Krishna is just ridiculous . It is a matter of common knowledge that it is not at all possible to perform marriage of a daughter by spending Rs.1000/- to Rs.1200/- only, by any standard. Although the parties may not be very well to do, one cannot loose sight of the fact that the few bare minimum rituals and things are required to be done in the marriage. A few clothes for the bride and the groom and the feast to at least the close relatives becomes necessity. The plaintiff has filed on record all the bills of expenditure of marriage. They are, however, not referred to in the evidence of plaintiff Kusum and as such not exhibited. The fact, however, remains that the plaintiff had spent for the marriage and she has filed the bills on record. Further the plaintiff has spent for the marriage but the defendant though obliged did not. The plaintiff is certainly, therefore, entitled to recovery of reasonable expenses which she must have been required to incur. To my mind, a bare minimum sum required for a marriage would be Rs.25000/- per marriage. The defendant would therefore be liable to pay Rs.75,000/- to the plaintiff. The appeal, therefore, must succeed. Hence, the following order. The appeal is allowed. The Judgment and decree passed by the trial court is set aside. The suit is partly decreed. The defendant do pay to the plaintiff Rs.75000/- (Rs.Seventy five thousand only) and proportionate costs for the suit as well the appeal. The decretal amount shall carry interest at Rs.6% P.A. from the date of the suit till realization. Decree be drawn up accordingly.