LAXMI SAHUANI Vs. MAHESWAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The defendant is the husband of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's suit is for a decree against the defendant (a) for maintenance of Rs. 60/- P.M., (b) for Rs. 1220/- towards arrear of maintenance and (c) for Rs. 500/- for separate residence.

(2.) The plaintiffs case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff is the legally married wife of the defendant and after their marriage, they lived as husband and wife for some time. The defendant thereafter ill-treated her and she left his house and is residing separately for which she brought the suit registered as T. S. No. 51/57 in the Court of the Sub-Judge. Bolangir for restitution of conjugal rights, the said suit was decreed. The plaintiff alleges that in spite of the decree, the defendant did not take her to his house in accordance with the custom governing the parties and the defendant, instead, married a second wife namely Kunjabati daughter of one Jogeswar Pradhan of Ranikata. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendant has got two children through the second wife. She claims that in the aforesaid circumstances the defendant is bound to maintain her by providing maintenance and a separate residence. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant owns about 10 acres of land, the annual income wherefrom would not be less than Rs. 10,000/-, according to the plaintiff she is entitled to the maintenance as prayed for.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement has admitted the plaintiff to be his legally married wife. He also admits that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed as alleged by the plaintiff. He further alleges that though he has been all through ready and willing to take the plaintiff to his house it is the plaintiff who does not intend to join him. The defendant strongly denies that he has married for the second time and also denies to have owned 10 acres of land as alleged by the plaintiff. According to him he has only 3 to 4 acres of land, the annual income of which would not exceed Rs. 400/-. It has been further stated in the written statement in view of his pecuniary condition, the maximum he can afford to pay is Rs. 2/- p.m.