LAWS(MAD)-2023-2-294

S.RETHINAPANDIAN Vs. KAMALA

Decided On February 27, 2023
S.Rethinapandian Appellant
V/S
KAMALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal Suit has been instituted against the Judgment and Decree, dtd. 31/1/2017 passed in O.S. No.2 of 2017.

(2.) The Appellant is the 1st Defendant in the original Suit. The 1st Respondent is the wife of the Appellant, who instituted a Suit in O.S. No.38 of 2013 before the District Court at Karaikal, which was transferred to Famil Court, Karaikal and re-numbered as O.S. No.2 of 2017. The Suit was filed seeking Monthly Maintenance of Rs.6000.00 from the Appellant/Husband and also to pay the arrears of maintenance.

(3.) The Plaintiff has stated that the marriage between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant was solemnised on 26/10/1983 at C.V.C. Thirumana Mandabam, Karaikal. They lived as husband and wife at Poraiyar and from and out of wedlock between them two children namely Manjula and Maheswaramoorhty were born. Their marital life went happily. The Plaintiff went to her father's house for second delivery and thereafter, the 1st Defendant/Husband was not interested to take back the Plaintiff and deserted her. The Plaintiff made repeated requests and issued a notice thereafter. The 1st Defendant/Husband had developed an illicit intimacy with a woman and was living a wayward life. The 1st Defendant continued his illicit relationship with Mariammal of Vizhidiyur with whom he has been living. From the year 1989 onwards, the 1st Defendant/husband neglected and also refused to maintain the Plaintiff and her children. The Plaintiff is not having any other property or source of income to maintain herself and children. Even her father was aged about 90 years at the time of filing of the Suit and she has been working in a Temple as Sweeper and leading her livelihood. The 1st Defendant was working as a Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Limited, Chennai and had received substantial amount as his terminal and pensionary benefits. However, the 1st Defendant has not paid any maintenance amount to the Plaintiff or to her children. Thus, the Plaintiff instituted a Suit for maintenance.