SESHADRI IYER Vs. LEKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are directed against the lower court's decree in a suit for maintenance by the wife against her husband.The parties are Hindus governed by Mitakshara Law.The relationship is also admitted.The first plaintiff was married by the defendant in the year 1103 and the 2nd plaintiff was born to them in the year 1108.Soon after the birth of the child,the first plaintiff with the child was living away in her parent's house.Her case is that she did so because the defendant was not properly looking after her and was not prepared to take a separate house for the residence of herself and her husband.The first defendant on the other hand,contended that he was always prepared to maintain her and she could have lived with his own parents and that it was a misconduct on the part of the first plaintiff to have gone away to her parents.Regarding these controversies,there is only the interested evidence of the parties in support of their respective contentions.In the nature of the points to be decided in the present appeals,it is not very necessary to find which party was at fault.

(2.) IN the year 1114,the defendant married again and soon after that marriage,the first plaintiff filed an application before the criminal court claiming separate maintenance for herself and the second plaintiff.This matter was compromised by the parties and the maintenance payable by the defendant was fixed at Rs.5 for the first plaintiff and Rs.21/2 for the second plaintiff.It is common ground that defendant had been making payments at this rate up to the time of the present suit in the year 1956.In the suit,plaintiffs claimed enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.75 i.e .,Rs.50 for the first plaintiff and Rs.25 for the second plaintiff.At this rate,past maintenance for 12 years was claimed.The claim was resisted by the defendant.The lower court fixed the rate payable at Rs.50,i.e .,Rs.30 for the first plaintiff and Rs.20 for the second plaintiff and decreed future maintenance at that rate.Past maintenance for 6 years was also decreed at the same rate.The defendant's appeal A.S.317 is against this decree.The points urged in that appeal are that past maintenance should not have been decreed and even if it could be allowed,it could not be at the rate of Rs.50,and that the rate fixed by the lower court is excessive.In plaintiffs 'appeal A.S.588/1957,the points raised are that past maintenance for the full period of 12 years should have been decreed and that the plaintiffs 'costs of the suit should also have been allowed.

(3.) COMING to the question of future maintenance,the defendant has a case that the rate of Rs.50/ - per month is too high.In view of his own admission,that his salary and allowance had gone up to over Rs.400/ - per month,we do not think that Rs.50/ - per month is unreasonable.He has also his Provident Fund besides the immovable property acquired by him.Thus,the rate fixed for future maintenance has only to be confirmed.We do not think that in respect of that matter the lower court's decree calls for any interference.