SHANKERAPPA Vs. SUSHILABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant is directed against a decree for maintenance dated 30-9-1980 made in 0. S. No. 95/78 on the file -of the, Civil Judge, Gulbarga. This appeal is in the list of cases for admission. -The appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned counsel on both sides taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this judgment. The records of the proceedings of the Court below are also before us.

(2.) plaintiff. Sushilabai, institituted the suit claiming separate maintenance from Shankarappa alias Shivashankar, the defendant. alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the defendant, their marriage having been performed on 11-5-1961 at Hagargundagi village of Gulbarga Taluk. She alleged that after the marriage the parties lived together as man and wife for some time; but thereafter The defedant, who is an Engineer in the service of Government left the plaintiff in the house of his parant's at Aland and began to live separately at the place of his posting. She further alleged that on account of the ill-treatment meted out to her by her mother-in-law, she found it impossible to continue to live at Aland. She says: that defendant instead of taking her Along with him send her back to her own parents place at Hagartundagi village during Ehiepavall of 1966 and thereafter defendant totally ignored and, deserted her ignoring the importunities of her father to permit her td. live with the defendant. Plaintiff sought a decree for maintenance at Rs. 200/- p. m. Some past maintenance was also claimed in the suit. It was Alleged that defendant apart from his salary of Rs. 1,000/- p. m. owns, Iand at Aland which yield Rs. 20,000/-, a year.

(3.) The defence was one of total denial of the relationship itself. Defendant contended that though the father at the plaintiff was desirous of giving plaintiff in marriage to the defendant, as the two were related and known to each other and had made a proposal in that behalf, the proposal did not fructify in a marriage as defendant turned down the proposal. It was suggested that in view of defendant rejection of the Proposal the relationship between the two families became estranged and highly strained and that the suit was the outcome and expression of this ill-will. It was also contended that the estimate of his income, both by way of salary and from immovable property, as well a quantum of maintenance had been highly exaggerated.