V SIVAPRAKASAM Vs. INDIRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 15. 7. 2003 passed in O. S. Nos. 15 of 1999 and 3 of 2001. A. S. No. 970 of 2003 has been filed against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 15 of 1999 on the file of Family court, Salem, which was filed for partition of residential house as against the appellant herein. A. S. No. 971 of 2003 has been filed against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 3 of 2001 also on the file of the Family Court, Salem wherein the respondent herein claimed enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 1,250/- to rs. 3,500/- per month.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the appellant and the respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 21. 2. 1975 and out of the wedlock they got a male child on 22. 5. 1984. The suit schedule property was purchased jointly in the name of the appellant and the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/ -. Subsequently, there was difference of opinion between the husband and wife and it is stated that they are living separately. Thereafter, the respondent is stated to have filed O. S. No. 572 of 1992 for maintenance which ended in compromise decree dated 27. 8. 1992, by which the appellant agreed to pay a sum of rs. 1,250/- per month towards maintenance. It is also stated that subsequently the appellant married one Gnanambal on 28. 10. 1992 at Vada Chennaimalai in Attur taluk. It is in the above sated background the respondent herein filed the suit for partition initially before the Sub Court, Salem in O. S. No. 564 of 1993 which on transfer to the Family Court, Salem got renumbered as O. S. No. 15 of 1999. The respondent later on filed O. S. No. 312 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif court, Salem claiming enhanced maintenance which on transfer to the Family court, Salem got renumbered as O. S. No. 3 of 2001.

(3.) THE respondent examined herself as P. W. 1, while the appellant and his brother were examined as R. Ws. 1 and2. Exs. P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the respondent and Exs. R1 to R7 were marked on the side of the appellant. The trial Court framed as many as four issues for determination in O. S. No. 15 of 1999, which read as follows: