R NAMASIVAYAM Vs. RAJARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of judgment in O.S.No.49 of 1997 on the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai, whereby the trial Court has awarded past maintenance of Rs.300/- to the second plaintiff from 08.02.1994 and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- towards educational expenses per annum. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant. For convenience, the parties are referred in their original rank in the suit.

(2.) THE first plaintiff is the wife of the defendant and their marriage was solemnised on 03.06.1984. Out of lawful wedlock, the second plaintiff was born on 14.07.1988. THE appellant/defendant was employed in Indian Air Force and the first plaintiff and defendant were living together in Ludhiana, Delhi and other places. THE defendant took voluntary retirement from the Air Force on 01.10.1993 and after his retirement, the first plaintiff and the defendant were living at No.33, Muthapudupet, I.A.F. Colony, Madras - 55. According to the first plaintiff, she has left for her parental house on 20.10.1993 with the permission of the defendant and she was staying there for ten days. While she was so staying in her parents house, the defendant has sent Ex.A2 legal notice calling upon her to rejoin him immediately and thereafter, the first plaintiff and the defendant were living together till 08.02.1994. THEreafter, the defendant left the house and he also issued a legal notice on 06.06.1994 (Ex.A3) calling upon the plaintiffs to come and reside at Thiruvannamalai. THE defendant had also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act at Thiruvannamalai. Alleging that the plaintiffs are not in a position to maintain themselves and that the defendant is bound to maintain them, the plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.49 of 1997, claiming maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the first plaintiff and Rs.300/- to the second plaintiff from 08.02.1994 besides Rs.4,000/- towards educational expenses for the second plaintiff. THE plaintiffs have also claimed Rs.750/- and Rs.600/- per month towards future maintenance for the first plaintiff and second plaintiff respectively. THE plaintiffs have filed the suit under Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. as indigent persons.

(3.) UPON consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the defendant has taken sincere efforts to have the matrimonial house at Tiruvannamalai and the first plaintiff was not willing to join her husband at Tiruvannamalai. The trial Court also held that the first plaintiff has been working as Instructor in a Typewriting Institute from which she was earning Rs.900/- per month and therefore the first plaintiff would not be entitled to claim any maintenance. Insofar as the second plaintiff, the trial Court held that the second plaintiff is born out of lawful wedlock and keeping in view of the paramount interest of the minor child, the father/defendant is bound to pay maintenance to the second plaintiff. Pointing out that the defendant is getting monthly pension of Rs.2,238/- and that he has got means to pay maintenance to the second plaintiff, the trial Court has awarded past maintenance of Rs.300/- per month to the second plaintiff payable from 08.02.1994 and arrears of Rs.10,800/-. The trial Court has also ordered educational expenses of Rs.4,000/- per year to the second plaintiff and further directed payment of future maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per month to the second plaintiff.