K. MANIYAMMA & ORS. Vs. LALITHAMBIKA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the plaintiffs in OS 65/2005 on the files of the family court, Nedumangad. They are the wife and children of the defendant. The defendant deserted the plaintiffs on 17.6.1991 without sufficient cause. The aforesaid suit was filed claiming past maintenance allowance from 17.6.1991 till the filing of the suit. According to them, even though they were residing together till 17.6.1991, the first defendant was not maintaining them during the said period. The first defendant was working in gulf countries for the last 12 years and he earned money and huge wealth. But he utilised the money and wealth for his own luxuries only. Though, the first plaintiff has 30 cents of property at Attingal, there is no income from the said property. The plaintiffs are depending upon the first plaintiff's mother for their livelihood. The first defendant has sufficient financial capacity to pay the defaulted past maintenance allowance from 17.6.1991 till the filing of the original suit and also for allowing the plaintiffs to recover the amount of Rs 500/- p.m each for all the plaintiffs from the first defendant and his assets.

(2.) The first defendant entered appearance, but he did not file counter statement denying the liability. During the pendency of the original suit, the plaintiffs filed a petition to attach the plaint schedule property for the realisation of the decree that may be passed in their favour and an order of attachment was passed in the said application.

(3.) While so, one Sisupalan filed a claim petition as IA 1092/99 against the plaintiffs 1 to 3 contending that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 instituted the suit against the first defendant raising false allegations on getting information that the first defendant was intending to sell the plaint schedule property to him. Considering the objection raised by the claim petitioner, the order of attachment was vacated by the court on depositing the security amount, before the court, by the first defendant. Thereafter the claim petitioner purchased the plaint schedule property as per sale deed No.3244 dated 27.12.1993. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a review petition to review the order lifting the attachment. That was also allowed.