ADIKANDA JOSHI Vs. ANNARPURNA JOSHIANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDENT is appellant against a decree for maintenance, separate residence and marriage expenses payable to second wife and daughter.

(2.) ALTHOUGH defendant was married and was having sons, he married plaintiff No. 1 again in the year 1954. Shortly after marriage, dispute arose. Birth of a female child could not mitigate the dispute and plaintiff No. 1 had to leave the matrimonial home in take year 1958 with her daughter leaving protection of the husband to take shelter in paternal home. In the year 1961 she filed a suit against defendant and his family members for maintenance of both mother and daughter. It was decreed directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/ - per month making the entire joint family property measuring about 10 acres charged for the same. In 1970, mother and daughter filed the suit for enhancement of maintenance, cost of residence and marriage expense of the daughter. In place of Rs. 33/ -, they claimed Rs. 200/ - per month. Besides marriage expenses of daughter and cost of separate residence were also claimed. During pendency of the suit, plaintiffs initiated execution proceeding registered as execution Case No. 17 of 1/71 for recovery of the arrear maintenance as per the previous decree. Sons of defendant filed an Application under Section 21, Rule 58 C.P.C. for release of their share from attachment. When this application was dismissed, plaintiffs filed an application for attachment, of the entire properties. Executing Court attached only three acres although the entire 10 acres 8 decimals were under charge. First wife and her sons filed a suit for declaration that their 7/8th share in the property is not liable for attachment and sale in execution of the decree. The suit for partition filed in the year 1972 was dismissed on the finding that A and B schedule properties therein are not liable for partition. First wife and her children filed an appeal against the same in the year 1974. When arrear maintenance for the subsequent years was added to be realised in the execution proceeding. Civil Revision was filed against such inclusion but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, first wife and children filed petition for release of their 7/8th share from attachment. This was allowed and 1/8th share of defendant remained under attachment. Writ of attachment was issued in respect of A.6.023 decs, which decree -holder applied to be put to sale. Defendant filed objection. At that stage, appeal was allowed and partition suit was decreed. Against this, plaintiff No. 1 has preferred second appeal in this Court. Suit for declaration that 7/8th share was not liable for attachment was decreed ex parte, Objection by defendant not to put the attached land to auction was rejected. At that stage suit for enhancement of maintenance was decreed Monthly maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 200/ -, Rs. 7,000/ -was directed to be paid by defendant for marriage expenses of daughter and Rs. 6,000/ - was directed to be paid for separate residence. This appeal arises out of the said decree. During pendency of this appeal various other litigations by way of revisions have been fought out. Thus, there is no chance for the parties to remain under the same roof again.

(3.) MR . S.N. Sinha, learned Counsel for defendant -appellant submitted that plaintiff No. 1 has got l/16th share in the joint family property which comes to about A.0.42 dacs. Defendant would be entitled to only A.0.84 decs, as rest of the property are to be in share of his sons and first wife. Mr. S.K. Mund, learned Counsel for plaintiffs on the other hand submitted that an amount of about Rs. 53,000/ - has remained in arrears. Learned Counsel for both parties in peculiar circumstances of this case, agree on principle that direction for payment of a consolidated amount would be just and beneficial. However, there is sharp differences between them in respect of quantum. In the background, I am to fix the quantum.