MEENAKSHI AMMAL Vs. SUBRAMANIA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed by the wife, who is aggrieved by the reduction of maintenance by the Lower Appellate Court. This is an astonishing case which reveals the unfair mind-sets revealing a clear gender bias.

(2.) THE wife filed a suit for maintenance in 1963. She was awarded a sum of Rs. 50/- per month. This was confirmed in appeal. Thereafter, in 1974 she again claimed enhancement and filed O. S. NO. 948 of 1974 and a sum of Rs. 150/- was awarded which was reduced to a sum of Rs. 120/- in appeal. In 1982, she filed the present suit from which the appeal arises claiming increase of maintenance of Rs. 400/- on the ground that cost of living has increased. The respondent resisted the claim. The Trial Court awarded a sum of Rs. 250/ - per month. This has been reduced and hence the appeal.

(3.) THE reasons given by the Appellate Court for reducing the maintenance are totally unsustainable. According to the Appellate Court, the wife who had been forced to live apart because the husband married again is guilty of greed. According to the Appellate Court she has not proved she is unable to maintain herself, she only has her eyes on the husband's property. What the Appellate Court failed to see is, this question of being unable to maintain herself had been held in her favour in the earlier proceedings and had become final. Her entitlement to maintenance is no longer in doubt. It has been twice accepted. The only dispute is regarding quantum. That is why she had twice filed suits and had claimed maintenance and for subsequent increase. The present suit is only for increase in the quantum which she is legally entitled to claim.