P.D. Rajan, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment in OP No. 1530 of 2005 of the Family Court, Alappuzha. Second respondent in the above OP is the appellant. The above petition was filed by first and second respondents seeking maintenance and to set aside a sale deed. The third respondent in this appeal is the husband of the first respondent. The brief facts are as follows. The marriage between the first respondent and third respondent was solemnized on 01/03/1999 at the Bride's residence as per Hindu Customary rites, and at that time, third respondent was working in GREF. After the marriage, they resided together in the matrimonial home and in the wedlock one child was born to them who is the second respondent. The husband failed to maintain his wife and child and hence, MC No. 48 of 2000 was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Haripad and that OP was settled in the Lok Adalath and respondents 1 and 2 were granted Rs. 750/- per month as maintenance. The husband failed to pay the amount as directed by the Court. Moreover, in order to defeat the claims of wife and child, he executed a sale deed in favour of his sister. Actually no sale consideration was paid by the appellant to third respondent. Moreover, she is also an accused in CC No. 544 of 2000 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Haripad and was fully aware of the maintenance case before the execution of the sale deed. The first and second respondents had no job or income, they approached the Family Court for getting maintenance from third respondent husband and to set aside the sale deed and realization of maintenance arrears.

2. The appellant resisted the claim in the Trial Court by filing a written objection and the third respondent husband was ex parte. In the written objection, she contended that she had no knowledge with regard to the legal proceedings between first and second respondents and with third respondent. She purchased the property on payment of valid consideration to third respondent with bona fides. By virtue of sale deed No. 2675 of 2000, appellant is the absolute owner and she is in possession of the property and enjoying the property. She had no knowledge about the whereabouts of the third respondent. She admitted that she was an accused in CC No. 544 of 2000, which ended in conviction. The sale deed executed by appellant and third respondent is valid and therefore the request for declaring the document as a sham document and to set aside the deed is not sustainable in law.

3. Both parties adduced both oral and documentary evidence in the Family Court. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW 1 and RW 1 and documentary evidence of Exts. A1 to A5. Trial Court, after detailed examination of the evidence on record, decreed the suit Aggrieved by that judgment, this appeal has been preferred.

4. Heard both sides. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment was rendered without considering the legal and documentary evidence in this case. The appellant had no knowledge regarding the pendency of the above maintenance case, which will not in any way, affect the right of the appellant by virtue of Ext A1 sale deed. According to Section 39 of Transfer of Property, Act, the right of maintenance could be enforced against the transferee, if he has notice of the proceedings, or if the transfer is gratuitous. In spite of it, first respondent proceeded against the appellant and no inference could be drawn against the, property of the appellant.

5. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 strongly resisted the above argument and contended that the appellant had knowledge about the pendency of the case when she was convicted in the criminal case. Ignoring that fact she colluded with the third respondent and fraudulently created a sham document.

6. Section 39 of Transfer of Property Act which reads as follows:

39. Transfer where third person is entitled to maintenance--Whe