PANKAJINI DAS Vs. HRUSHIKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur passed in Title Suit No.3 of 1971. The suit is one for a decree of maintenance and for recovery of arrear of maintenance as also for separate residence.

(2.) Plaintiff No.2 is the son of Plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 is the legally married wife of defendant No. 1. Defendants Nos.2 and 3 are the father and mother respectively of defendant No.1; and defendant No.4 is the surviving member of another branch whose name stands recorded along with defendant No.2 in respect of the properties described in the plaint schedule.

(3.) The plaintiffs' case in short is that Plaintiff No.1 is the legally married wife of defendant No.1 their marriage having taken place in the year 1961. Plaintiff No.2 was born out of their wedlock in the month of Sravan in the year 1964 and was thus a minor when the suit was instituted. According to Plaintiff No.1, she was being ill-treated in the house of her husband-defendant No.1 and was driven out of his house some time prior to the birth of Plaintiff No.2 and Plaintiff No.2 was born in her parents' house. Some time after the birth of Plaintiff No.2, she was taken to the house of Defendant No.1 along with her minor child at the intervention of some local gentlemen with the assurance that she would not be ill-treated by her husband or the in-laws. But to her misfortune, the ill-treatment continued as before. Defendant No.1 was then serving at Bhubaneswar and in spite of repeated requests he refused to take Plaintiff No.1 with him to Bhubaneswar to live with him. Her parents-in-law, namely, Defendants Nos.2 and 3, also objected to her staying with Defendant No.1 at Bhubaneswar. On one occasion Plaintiff No.1 was wrongfully confined in a room by Defendant No.1 with the help of his parents and she was forced to execute a deed of divorce to which Plaintiff No.1 did not agree. She was thereafter driven out of her husband's house and was not even allowed to take the minor sucking-child (Plaintiff No.2) with her. Plaintiff No.1 had to take shelter of the Court to get back the custody of her sucking-child. Plaintiff No.1 alleges that Defendant No.1 is guilty of deserting her and that she is entitled to be maintained by him. She further alleges that since some time in the year 1967 Defendant No.1 has been living with another woman and has begotten one son and one daughter through her. According to her, Defendant No.1 has either married the said lady or has been living with her in adultery. In view of the income of her husband from his salary as also from the cultivable lands owned by the family, she claims a maintenance at the rate of Rs.10Q/- per month for her and Rs.30/- per month for Plaintiff No.2. She claims Rs.20/-per month towards house rent for her separate residence. Arrear of maintenance at the same rate has been claimed from 11-8-1965 to 11-1-1967, i.e., the date on which the proper application was presented. The plaint contains a prayer for creating a charge on the properties belonging to the family, the list of which has been given in the plaint.