JAVARE GOWDA Vs. KEMPAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) there is no merit in this second appeal. It is a plaintiffs appeal on account of the modification made by the lower appellate court.

(2.) the facts leading to the case may be stated as follows : plaintiff is the wife of one javaregowda respondent herein. She claimed main-tenance under Section 23 of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act inter alia on the ground that her husband has taken a second wife and has deserted her and she has no means to support herself. She also claimed past maintenance. Defendant entered appearance through counsel and filed written statement denying all the plaint allegations.

(3.) on such pleadings, several issues were framed. The trial court came to the con-clusion that the defendant had taken a second wife and deserted the plaintiff and it also came to the conclusion after examining the evidence on record, that plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 300/- as maintenance. The said sum of Rs. 300/- per month was split up into two items one for maintenance at Rs. 250/- per mensem and Rs. 50/- for separate residence. The defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court presented the appeal in the court of the civil judge, srirangapatna in r.a. No. 8 of 1986. The learned first appellate judge has done no more than modify the decree, but concurring in other respects with the findings of facts of the trial court. Having regard to the evidence of plaintiff herself, and her witnesses who were at variance in regard to the annual income of the plaintiff from the wetlands which measured about 414 acres, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the monthly income, net of the plaintiff would be around Rs. 850/-. Out of that he has taken away Rs. 100/- for incidental expenses of income and given the plaintiff one-third of the said sum of Rs. 750/- the net income as her maintenance. In doing so, he has taken into account the legislative guidelines found in Section 23 of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act. He has had regard to the other members of the family who were wholly maintained by the defendant. Plaintiff herself had proved that her husband had taken a second wife. It also came out in the evidence that plaintiff had his mother to support. She also proved that plaintiff had a son by the second wife. All of them were entitled to maintenance under the said act. Regard being had to that fact, he has reduced the quantum of maintenance from rs.300/- to rs.250/-. He has also taken notice of the fact that the plaintiff was making a living earning as an agricultural labourer on daily wages.