DEIVANI AMMAL Vs. SABBIAH PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 554 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivilli-puthur, challenging the correctness of the judgment of the District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in A.S. No. 30 of 1978. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The first appellant is the wife and the second appellant is the minor daughter of the respondent herein. The first appellant married the respondent in the year 1967 and the second appellant was born as a result of the said marriage. The first appellants case is that she lived happily till the middle of 1970,. when the respondent took the jewels worth about Rs.1,500 from the first appellant and sold them as a result of which there was a misunderstanding. The respondent ill-treated the first appellant intending to marry his sisters daughter as his second wife. The ill-treatment was also due to the instigation of the sister of the respondent. Eventually, the first appellant was sent out of the house of the respondent after meting out the cruel treatment. Hence the first appellant claims that she is entitled to live apart from her husband and prays for a maintenance of Rs.75 per mensem for her and Rs.30 per mensem for the minor daughter.

(2.) The case of the responded is that he did not take the jeweles of the first appellantas alleged and that he did not also ill-treat the first appellant. The respondent, on the ground that the first appellant had deserted him had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P.No.46 of 1972 Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, and the same was allowed. The first appellant did not comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights and on that basis the Sub-Court, Ramanatha-puram at Madurai passed an order for divorce in O.P.No.46 of 1972, it is also the case of the respondent that he is prepared to live with the first appellant and maintain her as well as the child-Regarding the quantum, the respondents contention is that the claim is excessive.

(3.) The trial Court, after considering the evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the appellants had made out a case for maintenance and taking into consideration the earrings of the respon-dent, the trial Court found that the first-appellant is entitled to Rs.50 per men-sem and the second appellant is entitled to Rs.15 per mensem by way of maintenance and passed a decree accordingly. As against the said judgment, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in A. S. No.30 of 1978 on the file of the District Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The learned District Judge ,on a reappraisal of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the first appellant is not entitled to any maintenance and in so far as the second appellant is concerned, the learned District Judge has failed to consider the claim and did not make any reference to the claim made by the second appellant. This second appeal is filed by the appellants herein challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment of the learned District Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai.