RAJAMMA Vs. VARADARAJULU CHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal and memorandum of cross-objections directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput in O. S. No. 69 of 1950,

(2.) THE facts are: The first defendant Vara-darajulu Chetti had three sons by name rajaman-nar Chetti, Dharmayya Chetti and Krishnan Chetti. The plaintiff was married in 1925 to Rajaman-nar Chetti when she was 11 years old and Rajetmannar chetti was 16 years old. This Rajamftnnar Chetti died in the first week of june 1926. Before the Karumathi of this Rajamannar Chetti, the plaintiff's father is said to have Settled the maintenance claim of his daughter by executing Ex. B-3 in pursuance of the arbitration award Ex. B-2 mediated under the muchalika Ex, B-l. The plaintiff has always been residing with her lather, because she has not joined her husband, this being a pre-puberty marriage. In 1950 on account of the fact that her father was becoming old and was unable to support her, the plaintiff has filed this suit for maintenance claiming past and future maintenance at Rs. 250/per month and on coming to Court she was confronted with the adjustment of her maintenance claim under Ex. B-S and the plea that the claim for maintenance was exaggerated and that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance only at the rate of rs. 15/- per month and that she had abandoned her claim for pas* maintenance. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the adjustment is not valid and binding on the plaintiff and gave a decree for arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month and future maintenance at Rs. 60/- per month. These amounts were erected as a charge on items 1 to 6 of the plaint A Schedule property. In addition a sum of Rs. 250/- was awarded tot pilgrimage, Vrathams etc. The plaintiff was made to bear the Court-fee on the disallowed amount and was given proportionate costs. The defeated plaintiff appeals in regard to the quantum of maintenance, past and future, disallowed and the defondants appeal against the award of maintenance itself.

(3.) THREE points which arise for consideration before us are: 1. Whether Ex. B-3 precludes the plaintiff from maintaining this suit? 2. Whether there was abandonment In respect of arrears of maintenance? 3. Whether the quantum of maintenance, pasfi and future, awarded is correct?