RAJENDRAN Vs. SUMATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in a suit for maintenance is the appellant in the second appeal. THEre were three plaintiffs in the suit, 1st plaintiff being the wife, and the others the children, of the defendant.

(2.) THE Munsiff found that the minor children were entitled to maintenance, and fixed it respectively at Rs. 50 and Rs. 25 per month. Maintenance, was however declined to the 1st plaintiff on the ground that she had not established that the husband had treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that the life with the defendant would be injurious to her. THE wife's evidence in the case consisted of the testimony of six witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff and eight documents, in addition to Exts. XI and XI (a) the certified copies of the extract of the general diary kept in the Quilon East Police Station, THE incidents in the house on 18-11-1978 were such that the Police Control Room had to be alerted and the defendant had to be taken to custody by the Police. PW. 2 spoke about the information received by the Police Control Room, of the husband being in the Police station to be released only next morning, after a warning. Ext. Al diary indicated a complaint about the defendant attempting to cause injuries to the 1st plaintiff. THE information to the Police had been given by p. W. 5, a neighbour of the 1st plaintiff's house, and owner of a rice mill. Another neighbour who knew P. W. 1 for a long time, P. W. 6, gave evidence about the defendant's dissatisfaction in not having the dowry in the full measure be expected. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was a drunkard.

(3.) WHETHER the conclusion of the lower appellate court is vitiated by any substantial error of law is the question which arises for consideration in the second appeal.