CHIDAMBARANATARAJA NADAR Vs. THANALAKSHMI NADACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No. 102 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted by the respondent herein for maintenance. It was admitted that the parties who are husband and wife were married on 19th November, 1956, and were living as husband and wife for some time, and, according to the respondent, the appellant herein ill -treated the respondent, removed her jewels along with the tali and sent her out of the house on 27th October 1957, and thereafter she had been living in the father's house, and she had not been taken by the appellant herein. It was also admitted that she filed a suit for recovery of the jewels from the appellant herein and obtained a decree in O.S. No. 34 of 1958. Equally, it was admitted that the appellant, in his turn, filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent herein and that suit was dismissed. Later, again, there was another proceeding by which the respondent herein took action against the appellant herein for bigamy, but that proceeding ended in failure, because the appellant had not married again, but was merely keeping a concubine. It is after all these proceedings, the present suit was instituted by the respondent herein claiming maintenance. The case of the appellant was that the respondent's father had made certain promises of gifts to the appellant and the latter had insisted that those promises should be fulfilled and on account of this, the relationship between the parties got strained, and on 27th October 1957 the respondent was taken away by her father along with her jewels and other articles during the absence of the appellant from the house, and in spite of the efforts of the appellant to get back the respondent to his house, the respondent had declined to come back. The written statement also referred to the action taken by the respondent under S. 494 of the I.P.C. and the dismissal of those proceedings. With regard to the claim for maintenance, the appellant stated that he had got possession of only item 6 of the plaint schedule and all the other items noted in the plaint schedule had been alienated by him by mortgage or otherwise and in items 10, 11 and 12, he was having only a one -sixth share and that was subject to an othi and all those properties were charged for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15/ - per annum to one Deivapazham Nadachi and that the respondent, on the other hand, was very rich having lot of cash with her, and that the lorry the appellant was said to be having was working at a loss and he had also to discharge a debt of Rs. 30,000/ -. The appellant also contended that the respondent was not entitled to any separate maintenance and that the claim for arrears of maintenance for a period of twelve years was barred by limitation:

(2.) On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: - -

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil, by judgment and decree, dated 29th February 1972, decreed the suit awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per mensem from the date of suit and at the rate of Rs. 60/ - per mensem as arrears of past maintenance for a period of twelve years prior to the institution of the suit. It is against this judgment and decree, the present appeal has been preferred by the defendant in the suit.