R SUBRAMANI Vs. KAMALAM ALIAS KAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the Judgment in A.S.No.133 of 1997 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Villupuram. The lis is between the wife and her husband. The defendants who had lost their defence before the first appellate Court are the appellants before this Court.

(2.) THE short facts of the plaint averments relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: THE marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was solemnized on 13.8.1972. THE plaintiff is the second wife of the defendant. THE first wife of the defendant is now no more. Through the first wife, the defendant had one married son and two daughters. Since the children of the defendant have neglected to look after the welfare of the defendant, the defendant had married the plaintiff as his second wife. At the time of marriage, the parents of the plaintiff had presented 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.10,000/- worth about ever silver utensils as Sreedhana. At the time of marriage, the parents of the plaintiff also presented a watch worth about Rs.600/- to the defendant. Even though at the beginning both the plaintiff and the defendant lived separately, subsequently, at the request of the defendant the plaintiff had agreed to lead a joint family along with the family of the defendant's brother. Slowly, the defendant began to ill treat the plaintiff for no reason of her. Developing inferiority complex against the plaintiff, he began to suspect the fidelity of the plaintiff. Later, the defendant has failed to maintain the plaintiff. THE defendant has also abused the plaintiff in filthy language in front of the defendant's brother and his wife. THE defendant had gone to the extent of even murdering the plaintiff. THE plaintiff has no source of independent in come. THE defendant is having the property worth about Rs.10,00,000/- and is getting an yearly income of Rs.75,000/- from the said properties. THE plaintiff was driven out of the matrimonial home by the defendant within one month from the date of marriage. THE plaintiff had issued a suit notice on 6.11.1987 demanding Rs.500/- per mensum towards her maintenance and also a sum of Rs.1000/- to meet her yearly expenses. THE defendant had sent a reply notice dated 22.11.1987 containing frivolous allegations. THE plaintiff has no amount to pay the court fee. Hence the suit for maintenance in informa paupris.

(3.) THE plaintiff in her reply statement would contend that the suit items 1 and 2 belongs to the defendant and not the defendant's brother Govinda Reddiar as alleged in the additional written statement. S.No.3/5 belongs to the defendant's family. No sale deed was executed in respect of S.No.83/2A, 83/2B and 83/2D in favour of one Velu Pillai as alleged in the additional written statement. S.No.84 was not sold to one Muniyappa Pillai by the defendant.