K P ASAITHAMBI Vs. PREMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.417 of 1984 on the file of District Munsif Court, Harur, has preferred the present second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.81 of 1986 on the file of District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri dated 30.6.1989 reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 14.9.1984.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows:- THE plaintiff/wife filed a suit against the defendant/husband claiming a sum of Rs.500 per month by way of maintenance. THEir marriage took place on 26.8.1977 and they had no issues. THEy lived separately and amicably in Kanichi village for ten months. THE defendant has been calling upon the plaintiff to approach her father to purchase a motor cycle for him and as the plaintiff was reluctant, he abused her and later snatched the Thali from her neck and sent her away. Th ere was panchayat also; but, however, the defendant was adamant in getting a motor cycle and when the plaintiff's father has expressed his inability to comply with the condition, he refused to take his wife and live with her. THE defendant sent a notice through counsel containing false averments and it was suitably replied. THE defendant has deserted the plaintiff without any reasonable cause and wilfully neglected her for more than 4 years. THE joint family of the defendant owns' more than 50 acres of land having 3 pumpsets and also a coconut thope consisting of more than 2000 trees, wherein the defendant has got l/5th share besides the defendant is the proprietor of a cinema theatre and they would be getting an annual income of Rs.25,000 in all the properties. She is now under the care and protection of her parents and she has no other source of income. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for maintenance against her husband/defendant herein claiming a sum of Rs.500 per month. THEre is no dispute, that their marriage took place on 26.8.1977; but according to the plaintiff, they lived together for a period of ten months, whereas according to the defendant, they lived together only for few months. P.W.1 is the plaintiff and P.W.2 is her father and P.W.3 is the panchayatdar. THE defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and D.W.2 is a person cultivating the lands of the father of D.W.1 and, as such, he is an interested witnesses. THE trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, whereas the lower appellate court reversed the finding and came to the conclusion that there was justifiable cause for the plaintiff to live separately and she is also entitled to claim a sum of Rs.400 per month by way of maintenance.