T. KARTHIKEYAN Vs. NAGARATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2020 passed by the Family Court, Salem in O.S. No.15 of 2015 directing the defendants/third respondent and the appellant herein to pay jointly Rs.8,000/- per month to each of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein from the date of filing of Pauper Original Petition namely, on 12.01.2011 till their life time.

(2.) Mrs.Hema Sampath learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that respondents 1 and 2 are mother and younger sister of the third respondent and the appellant. Assailing the impugned direction given in the judgment, learned senior counsel argued that when the appellant is prepared to pay the maintenance to his mother, there is no liability on his part to pay the maintenance to his sister. When the second respondent second plaintiff is not an illiterate and also earning handsome amount by doing tailoring job, this vital aspects have been completely overlooked by the Family Court. Moreover, though the appellant herein in his written statement has stated that the second respondent herein is a normal lady and also competent and capable enough to eke out her livelihood, the Family Court, without any acceptable evidence, has come to the conclusion that since the second plaintiff second respondent, who appears to be a lady of less intelligence quotient, is not able to speak clearly or fluently, she is not in a position to maintain herself. Arguing further, learned senior counsel submitted that when the pay certificates have not even produced, it is un-reasonable and un-justified on the part of the Family Court to reach the said conclusion that the appellant/second defendant has got means to maintain the plaintiffs. Although the appellant/second defendant has specifically stated that he is ready to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the first plaintiff during the cross examination of D.W.1, without any basis or reasoning, the Family Court has directed the appellant to pay maintenance to the second respondent/second plaintiff on the sole ground that she is unmarried sister, which is not only legally and factually incorrect but also against any justification. As the liability to maintain the second respondent/second plaintiff has been wrongly fastened on the appellant, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with.

(3.) Heard both sides.