LAKSHMI Vs. M MUTHIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the refusal of the relief of maintenance by the first appellate court, though agreed by the trial court, the plaintiff has brought forth this second appeal.

(2.) The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties: The plaintiff is the lawfully wedded wife of the defendant. Their marriage took place on 21.10.1962 according to the Hindu Caste, Customs and rites. The plaintiff gave birth to a female child, by name, Petchiammal. The defendant brought the concubin d has been living in the house. Due to the association of the defendant with concubine Veerammal, the defendant ill-treated and beat the plaintiff to the extent of endangering her life. The plaintiff was bearing the cruel treatment patiently. The plainti ff, due to her suffering and starving for a period of 15 years, during which period the defendant did not make any arrangement for her maintenance, approached the defendant, but the defendant was giving false excuses and promises all along. The marriage of Petchiammal was also done three years ago to the institution of this proceedings. The plaintiff has no means to support her and is not able to earn her bread, whereas the defendant was a rich man, having got Rs.40000/-, and apart from that he has got an annual income of Rs.20000/- from the plaint scheduled landed property, and thus, there arose a necessity for filing the suit for the recovery of maintenance of Rs.4200/- as past maintenance and for maintenance at the rate of Rs.350/- per month towards future maintenance.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant stating that it is true that the marriage of the parties took place and the plaintiff gave birth to a female child; that the allegation of cruel treatment was utter false; that there was a customary divorce he presence of the panchayat on 14.7.1974; that at the time of panchayat, the "parisam" amount of Rs.201/- was also given by the defendant to the plaintiff, and thus, the marriage tie between the parties came to an end; that from the time of divorce, the plaintiff has been living with her parents; that it is false to state that the defendant has got Rs.40000/-, and apart from that he is having lot of movable and immovable properties; that after the divorce, the defendant was maintaining the daughter Pet chiammal and she has also filed a suit against the defendant and his mother in OS No.424 of 1986 containing false allegations and the same is also pending, and thus, the plaintiff's case for maintenance was false, and hence, the defendant was not liable to pay any maintenance.