RANI Vs. SASIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S. 405 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court of Thiruvananthapuram are the appellants in this appeal. O.S. 405 of 1988 was filed by the plaintiff in the suit, the respondent in this appeal, for partition and delivery of one - half share in the plaint schedule property with profits. The defendants resisted the suit, denying the plaintiffs right to claim partition. The Trial Court overruled the defence contentions and passed a preliminary decree for partition. It awarded the plaintiff one - half share on the basis that he had equal right with defendant No. 1 in the plaint schedule property. It is this decree that is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff married the first defendant on 26.4.1981. The second defendant in the suit is the mother of the first defendant. On 12.3.1981, about a month prior to the marriage, the second defendant, the mother, and DW.1, the father of defendant No. 1, executed a settlement deed, Ext. A1, settling the plaint schedule property on defendant No. 1, their daughter, and on the plaintiff, their would be son inlaw or the would be husband of the first defendant. In that document, it was stated that defendant No. 1, their daughter, was the second donee. The first donee, the plaintiff, had agreed to marry their daughter, the second donee, with the full consent of the members of his family and his relatives as per the practice of the community and the marriage between the plaintiff and first defendant had been fixed. In that circumstance, with a view to secure the future life of the daughter and her husband and for their benefit, the property was being gifted for the purpose of their maintenance in consideration of the love and affection the donors had for the donees. It is after this document was executed that the plaintiff married the first defendant on 26.4.1981.

(3.) There was harmony in the matrimonial home for a little while. A son was born to the couple. Thereafter it is seen that the wife, the first defendant, and the husband, the plaintiff, fell apart. The wife filed a petition under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance against her husband. The husband resisted that application. Maintenance was ordered by the Magistrate, both for the wife, the first defendant, and the son. The plaintiff, the husband, challenged that order in a revision before the Sessions Court. That revision was also dismissed. It is submitted that the order for maintenance has become final. It is submitted on behalf of the defendants that the maintenance was not being paid by the plaintiff for the last five years.