JAINALABUDEEN Vs. KATHIJA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.1.1988 rendered in O.S.No. 93 of 1985 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, wherein in the suit filed for maintenance by the respondents herein as the plaintiffs claiming maintenance of Rs. 500 in favour of the first plaintiff and Rs. 300 in favour of each of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, the lower Court has passed a decree granting a total monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 450 in favour of the plaintiffs and a further amount of Rs. 16,200 as past maintenance besides making provision to adjust the amount of Rs. 15,000 already deposited in the Indian Overseas Bank by the defendant and the amount ordered as per the order made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagapattinam in C.M.P.No. 52 of 1981 and further directing the defendant to bear the Court fees and parties to bear their respective costs.

(2.) TRACING the history of the case as pleaded in the plaint, the first plaintiff has submitted that the marriage between the first plaintiff and the defendant was solemnized on 21.1.1971 as per Mohammedan Customs and Rituals and in accordance with Mohammedan Law at Thopputhurai village and from and out of the wedlock, four female children were born of whom the first two children are plaintiffs 2 and 3; that inspite of the first plaintiff having acted as a dutiful Mohammedan wife, since the defendant aimed at marrying another woman, taking advantage of the destruction of the residential building in the cyclone that occurred in the year 1977, he sent the first plaintiff to her parents abode; that thereafter the defendant started discarding the plaintiffs and all his attempts to get married a second time having been failed with the help of the Jamath on 1.7.1979, after reconstruction of the house, when the defendant was celebrating the house warming ceremony, the first plaintiff who went there was ill-treated, beaten up and humiliated, besides being bundled lock stock and barrel and sent back to her parents' abode deliberately.

(3.) IN the additional written statement filed by the defendant, he would allege that it was not decided to go in compromise in all the litigations pending between themselves; that the panchayatdars neither heard the parties in full nor went through the documents; that the compromise dated 30.6.1985 was not acted upon as per the first plaintiff's lawyer's notice dated 21.1.1986; that there is no provision in law to get two reliefs for maintenance, one in the Magistrate's Court and the other before this Court; that the divorce case is still pending in the second appeal in S.A.No. 2182 of 1984 in the High Court of Madras; that the maintenance amount sent by this defendant in accordance with the orders passed by the Magistrate's Court has been accepted by the plaintiffs; that only the amount for the month of January 1986 had not been accepted by the plaintiffs, which he is ready to pay; that from the correspondence it comes to be known that it is the first plaintiff's brother Abubucker, who is behind everything.