D ANJAMMAL Vs. DAKSHINANURTHY PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S.No.153 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai, have preferred this Appeal.

(2.) THE short facts of the plaintiffs' case sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:

(3.) POINT (i):- The first plaintiff and minor fourth plaintiff-Vasuki have claimed maintenance of Rs.500/- per month from the first Defendant. The learned trial judge has rejected their claim on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show that the plaintiffs are living separately from the first Defendant. Basing the evidence of the second Defendant, who was examined as D.W.1, the trial Court has come to a conclusion that both the plaintiffs and first Defendant are living under the same roof, but an independent witness viz. Anjan, who was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of the plaintiffs, was not at all taken into consideration by the trial Court. The fact that P.W.2 was working under the first Defendant as a labourer will not lead to discord his evidence in to-to. There is no motive suggested against P.W.2 to depose falsehood against the first Defendant. P.W.2 has categorically deposed in his evidence that both the plaintiffs and the first Defendant are living separately even few years before filing of the suit. Except plaintiffs 1 and 4 no one else to claim any amount towards maintenance. It is in evidence that the fourth Defendant has also got married. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the first Defendant is liable to pay maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the first plaintiff. The first point is answered accordingly.