G RAMACHANDRAN Vs. VIMALA ALIAS KUPPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern both the second appeal and the cross objection.

(2.) This second appeal has been brought forth from the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore made in AS No.99 of 1991 wherein the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit was confirmed.

(3.) The following short facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties: The plaintiff was married to one Chandra on 21.8.1978 and in the course of the wedlock, three children were born. The plaintiff, before his marriage with the said Chandra, came into contact with the first defendant, but she was already married to one Kasi. She has been living with the said Kasi and has given birth to several children. The first defendant's real name was Kuppammal and the plaintiff, after he came into contact with her, changed her name as Vimala. The first defendant had been a woman with loose morals and her husband Kasi never took her seriously and he has satisfied with the earnings she got from her paramours. After the marriage of the plaintiff with Chandra, the plaintiff was not keen in continuing relationship with the first defendant very often. while so, in 1985, the first defendant, in order to extract lumpsum from the plaintiff, filed a maintenance case in MC No.16/85 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore for herself and on behalf of her two children, namely, the defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant filed the petition with the false name called Vimala. Because of the said benami, the plaintiff has signed in the memo, wherein he agreed to pay Rs.100/- towards maintenance of the defendants. The plaintiff, even without knowing the contents of the same, signed in the endorsement in order to get rid of the case. The first defendant, who has been keeping quiet all along the years, with a view to extract the sum filed the applications in MC No.1 of 1988 to enforce the order of maintenance and MC No.2/88 for enhancement of the maintenance. Under the stated circumstances, it has become necessary for the plaintiff to file the suit for a declaration that the first defendant is not a legally wedded wife of the plaintiff and the second and the third defendants were not born to the plaintiff and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction from executing the order passed in the maintenance case.