T SUBRAMANIAM Vs. SANTHAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by granting maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to each of the Plaintiff from the date of Plaint till the life time of 1st Plaintiff and till attaining majority of 2nd Plaintiff or further orders, husband filed this appeal. For convenience, wife Santhamani is referred as 1st Plaintiff and husband Subramaniam is referred as Defendant in this Judgment.

(2.) Case of Plaintiff's is that 1st Plaintiff and Defendant got married in the year 1991 and out of their wedlock, 2nd Plaintiff was born on 26.12.1999. While living at Kumaran Nagar, Defendant began to lead a wayward life and often quarreled with the 1st Plaintiff by demanding 20 sovereign of gold and Rs. 10,000/- cash. Defendant had also demanded name transfer of the house site purchased in the name of 1st Plaintiff by her father Muthusamy Chettiar. Case of Plaintiff's is that Defendant became very hostile not only towards 1st Plaintiff but also towards his son 2nd Plaintiff and treated them in a very cruel manner not even providing proper food and milk to 2nd Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff's, in order to safeguard the life of Plaintiff's during the year 1992, 1st Plaintiff's sister took both the Plaintiff's to their parental home at Varadharajapuram for time being. Afterwards, the Defendant never visited the Plaintiff's or tried to bring them back to Pollachi for peaceful living. From that date onwards the Defendant deserted the Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's are living separately. It is averred that the efforts taken by the 1st Plaintiff to join with the Defendant ended vein. Further case of Plaintiff's is that 1st Plaintiff had given Police complaint to All Women Police Station, Pollachi for peaceful living and the Police enquired the matter. From the enquiry, it reveal that Defendant has got married with his distant relative who is residing at Kerala as second wife. Now the 1st Plaintiff is residing with her parents at Varatharajapuram with great difficulty. In order to meet out the educational expenses to 2nd Plaintiff and necessities to Plaintiff's, they required minimum Rs. 2000/- per month. Case of Plaintiff's is that Defendant is working as Office Assistant in Sub-Registrar's Office at Annamalai and earning Rs. 3,500/- per month. Apart from his salary, Defendant also receiving rent of Rs. 3000/- per month from the house rented to third parties. Plaintiff's issued legal notice on 04.11.1997 and by setting out false allegation, Defendant issued reply notice on 17.11.1997.

(3.) Resisting the suit, Defendant filed written statement contending that he never demanded any money from the 1st Plaintiff alleged in the Plaint and that the 1st Plaintiff who went to her parents house on her own and did not return back to the matrimonial home. According to the Defendant, 1st Plaintiff never cared the aged mother of the Defendant. Case of Defendant is that inspite of efforts and panchayat, 1st Plaintiff did not return back to the matrimonial home. Hence, Defendant issued legal notice on 29.6.1993 calling upon the 1st Plaintiff to come and live with the Defendant and 1st Plaintiff replied the said notice on 02.07.2003 and Defendant sent his rejoinder also. Further case of Defendant is that since the 1st Plaintiff refused to live with the Defendant, Defendant filed HMOP. No. 121/1995 for restitution of conjugal rights before Sub-Court, Udumalaipet and after the receipt of notice in the said HMOP, 1st Plaintiff appeared in person before Sub-Court, Udumalaipet and endorsed that she is willing to join with the Defendant. Inspite of the decree, 1st Plaintiff never returned back to matrimonial home. Thereafter, Defendant issued notice to the 1st Plaintiff on 17.4.1996, 15.5.1996, 05.7.1996, 16.7.1996, 03.12.1996, 1.10.1997, 17.11.1997 and 12.1.1998 calling upon 1st Plaintiff to come and live with Defendant. Case of Defendant is the since 2nd Plaintiff completed 6 years of age, Defendant filed HMGOP No. 52/98 on the file of District Court, Coimbatore seeking custody of 2nd Defendant and also appoint him as guardian and the was later transferred to Sub-Court, Udumalpet and renumbered as GWOP. No. 339/2000 and the same is pending. Defendant denied having married his relative girl. Further defence plea is that without prejudice, the claim made by the Defendant is exorbitant, since Defendant earning only meagre amount and Plaintiff's are not entitled to claim any maintenance from the Defendant and prayed for dismissal of the suit.