KANTHAMMA Vs. NANJUNDA DEVARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PLAINTIFFS 1 to 3 are the appellants. The plaintiffs feel aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, which has created a charge for maintenance decree only in respect of one property as against the claim of the plaintiffs over 12 other properties.

(2.) APPELLANT No. 1 is the wife of respondent 1 and appellants 2 and 3 are their children. The suit is for separate maintenance and residence against defendant 1 and also for a charge on all the suit schedule properties; the trial court granted the decree directing defendant 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 50/- to each of the plaintiffs and further directed a charge to be created -on the suit schedule properties in respect of the claim of maintenance of the plaintiffs. Past maintenance was also granted. No appeal was preferred by the other defendants who were alienees of the properties and the defendant alone preferred the appeal challenging the grant of maintenance. The plaintiff filed cross-objections claiming enhanced maintenance. The appellate court allowed the cross-objections, but however, declined to create a charge in respect of all the properties except item No. 2. According to the plaintiffs, there should have been a charge in respect of half share of the first defendant, inasmuch as, the other defendants have not preferred any appeal and the appeal as against them has become confirmed. Their claim not having been accepted by the first appellate court, the plaintiffs are once again before this court seeking such a relief.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiffs was that the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant, having married on 15. 5. 1968. Ever since the date of marriage, defendant 1 is not on cordial terms with the first plaintiff. Plaintiffs 2 and 3, the daughter and son were bom to the defendant out of the lawful wedlock. Defendants 2 and 3 who are brother and mother of the first defendant-husband are instigating the first defendant not to yield to the demand for maintenance of the first plaintiff and her children. Therefore, the suit for maintenance alongwith the claim for a charge over the property were filed by the plaintiffs.