PAVAYAMMAL Vs. KOMARASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Pavayammal (plaintiff) filed a suit against the respondents herein (D-2, D-4, D-1 and D-5 respectively) and one Marayee Ammal (D-3, since dead) in O.S. No.125 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif Court, Bhavani praying the Court to pass a decree directing the defendants to pay her enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.250 per month towards her food, clothing and residence from the date of suit throughout her lifetime and for further decree directing the properties described in the schedule annexed to the plaint over which a charge for the proper payment of the maintenance at the previous rate had already been created in O.S. No.171 of 1965 on the file of District Munsif Court, Erode will continue to remain charged for the proper payment of the enhanced maintenance and for other reliefs.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that she is the wife of the first defendant and the marriage was celebrated in the year 1962. THE first defendant fell into the bad company of one Chennarayan and Natesan and started to ill-treat the plaintiff and finally she was deserted. With a view to deprive the plaintiff for her maintenance rights, the first defendant conveyed his immovable properties comprising of very valuable and fertile agricultural land and a house property in favour of the said Chennarayan and Natesan and that was nothing but collusion. THE plaintiff thereafter filed a suit in O.S. No.171 of 1965 on the file of District Munsif Court, Erode against the first defendant and the said Chennarayan and Natesan claiming separate maintenance and also praying for creation of charge over the immovable properties alienated by the first defendant in favour of the said two persons, who were also arrayed as defendants 2 and 3 in that suit. THE defendants in that suit contested and finally Court passed a decree on 17.8.1967 awarding maintenance to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.30 per month with costs and with a charge over the immovable properties. Out of the charged properties described in the schedule to the plaint in the present suit, item No.1 is a landed property and the same was sold by the said Chennarayan and Natesan to one Marappa Gounder of Kavundapadi cusba. After the demise of the said Marappa Gounder, defendants 2 to 4 herein succeeded as legal representatives and that they are in possession of the said items. Defendants 2 to 4 are also bound under law to pay maintenance from out of the charged properties in their possession and enjoyment. Item No.2 was also purchased by Marappa Gounder, who later sold it to the fifth defendant in the suit. According to the plaintiff, after 1967 when the decree came to be passed in O.S. No.171 of 1965 by the learned District Munsif, Erode, because of the several change in circumstances, necessity arose for the plaintiff to claim enhanced maintenance for herself. Plaintiff would contend that the value of the rupee has gone down at least five times and the cost of living and price of food grains and other goods increased more than ten times between 1967 and 1983 and that on the other hand the income from the charged properties when calculated in rupees also increased more than ten times and that further because of her age and illness, she is unable to do any coolie work as she was doing earlier, to earn for her livelihood. Plaintiff made a claim for enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.250 per month, but the defendants refused to heed to her request and this prompted her to send a registered notice dated 13.7.1980. Though the second defendant gave a reply raising false and untenable contentions, the others did not respond.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants 2 and 4 filed an appeal in A.S. No.44 of 1988 on the file of Additional District Court, Erode. Plaintiff filed cross-objection in the said appeal claiming that the trial Court ought to have awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.250 per month. The learned District Judge, Erode by his Judgment dated 15.3.1989 held that the plaintiff would be entitled for maintenance only at the rate of Rs.120 per month, but however held that there will be no charge over the suit properties. The cross-objection filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed.