K.RADHA Vs. SIVASANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner in O.P.No.212 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad, is the appellant herein. She filed the original petition claiming past and future maintenance for herself and for her minor son at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and also for recovery of value of 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash amount of Rs.25,000/- alleged to have been entrusted with the husband, who is the sole respondent in the original petition. The court below granted past and future monthly maintenance to the mother and son at the rates of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/- respectively charged over petition B schedule properties. As regards her claim for return of cash amount and value of gold ornaments, original petition was dismissed. Challenging the dismissal as well as seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded, she filed this appeal against her husband. Her son, the 2nd petitioner in the original petition, was arrayed as 2nd respondent in this appeal.

(2.) She was married to 1st respondent on 14.3.1985. The 2nd respondent minor son is 16 years and studying in Plus 2 standard. The first child who is a daughter was already given in marriage. Her case is that at the time of marriage she was adorned with 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and was given cash amount of Rs.25,000/-. The husband who was employed in Gulf, returned after three years and he went to Rajasthan and worked as a mining employee. It is alleged that her life in Rajasthan with 1st respondent was unbearable on account of mental and physical cruelties and also his suspicious character doubting her chastity. She therefore left his company with children since 9.2.2009. When he started harassing her outside the house, she instituted a petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During her life with 1st respondent, he took away her 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and misutilised the cash amount of Rs.25,000/- belonging to her for his personal needs. It is alleged that since the month of February, 2009, 1st respondent failed to maintain her and the minor son, despite of his having sufficient means to maintain them. The appellant does not have any means of her own and she is not getting any income from 28 cents of land which alone is in her possession. The 1st respondent, on the other hand, has been possessing bank deposits and is drawing substantial amount of interest and also has landed property in his name. Therefore, she claimed monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- from him for herself and minor son and further sought to recover value of 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and also cash amount of Rs.25,000/- alleged to have been taken from her and misutilised for meeting his private needs.

(3.) The 1st respondent in his objection denied the allegations of entrustment of gold and cash with him. He stated that to his knowledge, the appellant had only 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, which she always possessed with her. He denied having received any cash amount from her or utilised it for his purposes. He said that after completing his job for three years in Gulf since his marriage with the appellant, he lived in Rajasthan as a mining labourer for 15 years and all this time, he used to maintain the appellant and children. After giving up his employment at Rajasthan, he came back to his native place in 2004 and got engaged in coolie work. According to him, the appellant had not joined him in Rajasthan where he was leading a lonely life. In 2005, it came to his notice that the appellant was maintaining illicit connection with one Murali and she had joined him in lottery business investing her share of money. A matrimonial discord followed in their life and she abandoned him in the month of February, 2009 and therefore he has no liability to maintain her. He has been maintaining the children to the best of his ability. He denied having any means and stated that he has only minimum wages received as a labourer for his source of livelihood. He denied getting any interest from bank deposits as alleged by the appellant. On the other hand, he alleged that the appellant has independent source of livelihood. Thus he opposed all the reliefs claimed by the appellant.