Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.
1. There are three points in this appeal. The first is as regards the marriage expenses of one party who was married after the date of the suit, and also as to marriage expenses having been allowed in anticipation of another party's marriage. Having regard to the decision of the Privy Council in Ramalinga Annavi v. Narayana Annavi , 24 Bom. L.R. 1209, it is clear that these expenses must be disallowed, viz., not only prospective marriage expenses, but also those incurred after the date of the suit and before the trial. Consequently the decisions in this Court in Jairam Nathu v. Nathu Shamji I.L.R. (1906) 31 Bom. 84, 8 Bom. L.R. 632 by Mr. Justice Scott, and Ramnath Chhoturam v. Goturam Radhakisan I.L.R. (1919) 44 Bom. 179, 21 Bom. L.R. 1179 by Sir Norman Macleod and Mr. Justice Heaton, as regards marriage expenses prior to the trial, must be treated as overruled. I may also refer to Mussammat Bholi Bai v. Dwarka Das I.L.R. (1924) 5 Lah. 375 as regards prospective marriage expenses, where the Privy Council case has been followed.
2. We were asked to distinguish the Privy Council case because it was said that the parties unlike in the Privy Council case, were living in separate houses and so on, and that in fact defendant No 4 and defendant No. 5 had had their marriage expenses paid out of the property and therefore it was only equitable that the same should be the case as regards defendants Nos. 1 and 2. But if any thing, it seems to us as a fortiori case that if marriage expenses are not to be allowed in the case of a joint family living together in the same house clearly they should not be allowed if the parties are living separately. His Lordship then dealt with other points in the case. ]
3. Accordingly the appeal will be allowed to this degree, i. e. that the marriage expenses must be disallowed, but it will fail on the remaining points.
4. As regards costs, each party should bear their own costs of this appeal.