RAJAMMAL Vs. KANNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is against the order of the learned District Judge of North Arcot at Vellore refusing to grant the application of the petitioner to amend the written statement or in the alternative to receive additional written statement under Order 8, Rule 9 and Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151, Civil P. C.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the respondent in this petition obtained a decree from the District Munsif's Court of Arni granting her maintenance from out of the properties of her father, and in the hands of his heir. The respondent is a widow and she was not able to get any maintenance from her own husband's estate. Relying on the contention that she did not get any maintenance from her own husband's estate, the District Munsif decreed maintenance to the respondent to be paid from out of the properties in the hands of the petitioners. The petitioners before me have filed an appeal against that decision and that appeal being 182 of 1948 is still pending. After the decree and after the filing of the appeal, the petitioners have come to know that the respondent has been leading an unchaste life and that on 15th October 1948 she gave birth to an illegitimate child. Having come to know this state of things the petitioners have applied to the District Judge by I. A. No. 127 of 1949 for amending their written statement filed in the suit raising a defence to the effect that the respondent in the appeal having become unchaste forfeits the right to the maintenance decreed in her favour by the decree of the lower Court.

(3.) Prior to this application, it transpires that the petitioner also made two other applications, one being 591 of 1948 for receiving additional evidence in the appeal and the other being 68 of 1949 for excusing the delay in filing additional evidence which came into their possession later. Both these applications were dismissed. It is not necessary for me to refer in detail to those applications for the purpose of this application, except to say, that in the first of the said applications, the petitioner stated that they had a serious suspicion that the respondent in the appeal was leading an unchaste life and since they had not material enough to conclusively prove that she was unchaste and out of consideration for the reputation of the family, they did not raise it as a defence to the suit when it was tried by the District Munsif.