VALSALA KUMARI V S Vs. S PRAHALADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in Mat. Appeal No. 307 of 2005 were petitioners in O.P. No. 634 of 1998 on the files of the Family Court, thiruvananthapuram. In that O.P., the petitioners claimed maintenance from the respondent. The claim for maintenance of the first appellant was rejected and a monthly maintenance of Rs. 750/- from the date of petition viz. 17.7.1998 till 31.12.2001 and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month were granted to the 2nd appellant. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim for maintenance of the first appellant and dissatisfied with the amount of maintenance granted to the 2nd appellant, Mat. Appeal No. 307 of 2005 has been filed. The first appellant in this case is the only appellant in Mat. Appeal No. 324 of 2005. The respondent in this appeal filed O.P. No. 333 of 2000 for a decree of divorce dissolving his marriage to the appellant on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. That O.P. has been decreed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, Mat. Appeal No. 324 of 2005 has been preferred by the appellant. Heard both the sides. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and also considering the parties involved, we have heard both these appeals together and they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The marriage between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband in Mat. Appeal No. 324 of 2005 was solemnized on 20.3.1982 in accordance with the rites and rituals followed among the Hindus. After a few months, differences were developed in their matrimonial life. A female child was born to them on 31.5.1983. It is the case of the husband that the wife deserted him on 19.10.1986. It is also his case that he was subjected to severe mental cruelty by the wife in different ways including raising allegation of illicit relationship with a lady by name Maya Jacob.

(3.) The wife has contested the divorce petition. The husband has contested O.P. No. 634 of 1998 filed by the wife and child for maintenance. The evidence in both the cases is common which consists of the oral testimony of PW1 who is the respondent and CPW1 who is the appellant in Mat. Appeal No. 324 of 2005. Exts. Al to Al 5 on the side of respondent and Exts. B1 to B15 on the side of appellants were also marked.