https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291396 The Court held that the sum received as solatium for resigning from the managing agency was a joint family asset, entitling the plaintiff to a quarter share. However, the amount standing to the credit of the first defendant's second wife was not considered a joint family asset. The claim regarding certain items of jewelry was dismissed due to lack of evidence. The Court found the marriage provision for the two daughters inadequate and increased it to Rs. 10,000 each, reflecting the family's wealth. The lower court's decree was confirmed with the modification of the marriage provision. en-us Wed, 09 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Nov 2020 13:30:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291396 The Court held that the sum received as solatium for resigning from the managing agency was a joint family asset, entitling the plaintiff to a quarter share. However, the amount standing to the credit of the first defendant's second wife was not considered a joint family asset. The claim regarding certain items of jewelry was dismissed due to lack of evidence. The Court found the marriage provision for the two daughters inadequate and increased it to Rs. 10,000 each, reflecting the family's wealth. The lower court's decree was confirmed with the modification of the marriage provision. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291396