The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of setting a standard for maintenance amounts in neglected wives and abandoned children claims, considering the physical and social needs of the modern man, including education and clothing, and taking into account the financial status of the defendant.

1. Suseela Amma is a heroine in her own way. There are many like her, whose heroics are unnoticed in the ballads of our times.

2. Right from the time she was delivered as a baby in the Victoria Hospital, Quilon, on 27th November, 1957, she had to fight against inimical environment. She could not enjoy a caressing kiss of an affectionate father; nor a paternal pat; she was

'An infant crying in the night, An infant crying for the light, And with no language but a cry'.

The matrimonial life of her mother bad already floundered on the rock of mistrust. The broken down matrimonial home, liberated the unhappy inhabitants when on 27-9-1958, the imprimatur of the Court sanctioned the snapping of the marital relationship.

3. The separated spouses were still young. Understandably, each of them loved to have a life to their liking. Sarojini Amma, the mother of Suseela married her husband's brother Kuttan Pillai. Two children were born out of that wedlock. Her father married Padmavathy Amma, a teacher.

This teacher couple had five children in that conjugal union. It was then a case of my children, your children and our child.

4. The little class quickly crossed the classes in the school, although drinking from the glass of her childish sorrows. She left the school and crossed her teens. Collegiate education was costly though. A helping hand of a sympathetic uncle, was found to be weak and wearied. Inexhaustible are not the resources of a middle class family.

5. A daughter's demand for assistance at this juncture was cruelly turned down by her father. Unfortunately and quite unexpectedly of a member of the teaching profession, he adopted what is established to be an unduly cruel and hostile attitude. Literally, he added insult to injury, when he disclaimed her as his daughter and attributed infidelity to her mother. This led to this unfortunate litigation where she claimed for fond and raiments, for her collegiate studies and other expenses a sum of Rs. 230/- per month. Disclaiming paternity was an easy way of disputing the liability. It was what the defendant did. This necessarily compelled the plaintiff to attempt what ultimately turned out to be massive evidence, to establish a lawful marriage between the defendant and her mother and the paternity she claimed over the defendant. She must have passed through excruciating agony, when, in the course of the cross-examination, she was asked to confirm about the fidelity of her mother, and of her paternity. Advocate R. Neelakanta Pillai proved Ext. C1 petition, a petition filed by the defendant. There is a clear recital therein about the marriage of the defendant with the plaintiff's mother and a subsequent dissolution. There was an ugly attempt on the part of the defendant at wriggling out of the forceful effect of this document. About that, then is a separate order. Pws. 3 and 4 were neighbours who attended the marriage. The plaintiff's mother save evidence as Pw 5. Kuttan Pillai gave evidence as Pw. 6 He spoke about the circumstances under which he married Sarojini Amma. She was cruelly abandoned by his brother. That was an unjust act. Another brother of his, Gopala Pillai, advised that he should better marry her. He felt accepting that advice. And that led to his marriage with the plaintiff's mother. He explains how his name happened to be shown as the father's name, when Suseela joined the school. This circumstance had been highly blotted up by the defence, in an attempt to throw dust into an otherwise clear vision about the relationship of the parties. The mother of the defendant, aged 82 was made to swear that there was no marriage between Sarojini Amma and Karunakaran Nair. For a variety of reasons, such as her advanced age. and infirm mind and the influence which Karunakaran Nair who maintains her would be having, that testimony is unsafe to be acted upon. Many matters spoken to by her are hearsay. Many acts of her conduct are unnatural. For similar reasons, the evidence of defe