GURUPADAYYA Vs. ASHALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in this second appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned principal civil judge, bijapur in regular appeal No. 75 of 1988 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned munsiff, bijapur in o.s. No. 135 of 1982.

(2.) the facts leading to the appeal are as follows:plaintiffs 1 and 2 are said to be the daughters and plaintiff 3 is said to be the son of defendant-gurupadayya and they were born to defendant through their mother drakshayini. They filed a suit at o.s. No. 135 of 1982 against gurupadayya praying for monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 85/-. They alleged that their mother drakshayini was married to gurupadayya on 24-12-1955 according to hindu rites and customs and after marriage they lived together for about three years and thereafter there were some quarrels between the two. According to them, though there was a divorce deed between the two, the same was not recognised according to the custom in the community to which they belong and the same was not acted upon and the same did not result in the dissolution of marriage between their mother drakshayini and father gurupadayya. It was also alleged that plaintiff No. 1 was born on 28-10-1965, plaintiff 2 on 10-12-1967 and plaintiff 3 on 5-10-1973. They alleged that the earning of their mother who is in service is hardly sufficient to meet their needs. They also alleged that respondent refused to maintain them. They were putting up with their mother. On these allegations in substance, they prayed for a decree for maintenance.

(3.) the suit of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendant. Hecontended, inter alia, that there was no relationship of wife and husband between him and drakshayini and that the divorce deed brought an end to their marriage. He also took up a contention that plaintiffs were not born to him. It was also contended by him that the mother of the plaintiffs has been serving as a school teacher and she is earning huge salary and her salary is more than sufficient for maintaining herself and her children. He also raised a contention that plaintiff's mother did not send any word to defendant to maintain them. He denied the other allegations made in the plaint which are not consistent with the stand taken by him. He prayed for the dismissal of the suit.