G. KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. M.N. MADHUSHREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unsuccessful defendant's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9.7.2014 made in R.A. No. 10/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Tiptur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.2.2012 made in O.S. No. 195/2010 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Tiptur, granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/ - to the respondent/plaintiff/wife from the date of the suit till her lifetime.

(2.) THE respondent -plaintiff had filed a suit for maintenance contending that her marriage with the defendant/present appellant took place on 28.11.2005 at Gurukula Kalyana Mantapa and after her marriage with the defendant at Shimoga, and she had led married life with the defendant for four years and their relationship was cordial. The defendant was working as lecturer in the Department of Chemistry at Sahyadri Science College, Shimoga and out of their wedlock a female child was born and all the expenses were met by the parents of the plaintiff. The defendant and his parents started blaming the plaintiff for giving birth to a child in "Mula Nakshathra". The defendant at the instigation of his parents and his younger brother has not even come to see his child. The plaintiff was made to return to her parents house after discharge from the hospital along with the child. Defendant has not shown any interest towards his wife and child and he was always ready to separate himself from the plaintiff for one or the other reason. Thereafter the defendant issued a legal notice with bald averments and he had made several allegations against the wife about her character. The panchayati held to reconcile the matter was not fruitful. The plaintiff is living in a remote area and her father was a Government Teacher and the plaintiff's mother was President of Gramapanchayath and they were well known in the locality. The defendant was making an attempt to marry the sister of the plaintiff by name Divyashree and was always compelling her to marry him and defendant was making threatening calls to the plaintiff and her parents. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant has neglected to maintain the plaintiff and her child and the defendant is working as a Professor and drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 45,000/ - and he is also earning about Rs. 2,00,000/ - per month from the agricultural properties and he owns a house. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for maintenance of Rs. 20,000/ -.

(3.) BASED on the pleadings the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues: -