ALI PATTAKKAL Vs. SHAHITHA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 24/2005 of the Family Court Nedumangad. The suit was originally filed as O.S. No. 122/1999 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and later transferred to the Family Court Nedumangad. The suit was filed by the respondents herein seeking past maintenance for the plaintiffs.

(2.) The plaintiffs inter alia alleged that the 1st plaintiff married the defendant as per Muslim law on 14.04.1996. A male child was born in the wedlock on 6.7.1997 who is arrayed as the 2nd plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs the defendant left them on 6.10.97 and thereafter neglected to maintain them. She claimed Rs. 2,000.00 per month for the 1st plaintiff and Rs. 1,000.00 per month for the 2nd plaintiff. She also claimed future maintenance at the same rate as well. Defendant denied having any relationship with the plaintiffs. He is an employee of the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre. He purchased 15 cents of property in the year 1993 and started constructing a house. 1st plaintiff's father offered to assist the defendant in construction especially in timber and carpentry work. When the construction was completed he demanded Rs. 25,000.00 as supervision charges and made a proposal to marry his daughter/1st plaintiff. The defendant refused the same. However, he decided that the demand made by 1st plaintiff's father could be settled after selling the property. But the property could not be sold due to the attachment at the instance of the plaintiffs. In the mean time another person approached the ISRO staff association and filed a complaint alleging that the defendant had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of an earlier marriage. The 1st plaintiff also lodged a complaint before the defendant's department and also before the Women's Commission. He further contended that using the key entrusted to the 1st plaintiff's father he opened the house and the plaintiffs reside there. Though the defendant filed a complaint before the police no action has been taken. He denied having entered into contract of marriage and refused the obligation to pay maintenance.

(3.) Before the Family Court, the evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW9 and CPW1. The plaintiffs relied on Exts.A1 to A16 and the defendant relied on Exts.B1 to B1 The Family Court after considering the contentions urged by the parties found that there was a valid marriage between 1st plaintiff and the defendant and therefore he is bound to maintain the plaintiffs and the suit was decreed allowing maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500.00 each per month from the defendant and the assets and charged on the plaint schedule property from the date of suit.