JUDGMENT.- The defendants in O.S. No. 3785 of 1970 on the file of the City Civil Court at Madras are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed the suit in forma pauperis for recovery of maintenance past and future and for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000 for the marriage expenses of the second plaintiff in the following circumstances. The first defendant (first appellant is the husband of the first plaintiff (first respondent). Their marriage took place in 1948 at Madras. The second plaintiff Lakshmi is the daughter born to them. In 1951 the first defendant began to ill-treat the first plaintiff and ceased to look after her and the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs were therefore compelled to file O. S. No. 1829 of 1958 on the file of the City Civil Court for maintenance. That ended in a compromise under which the second plaintiff was awarded future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35 per month and a sum of Rs. 400 for past maintenance. The claim of the first plaintiff for maintenance was not pressed. Thereafter, the first defendant filed O.P. No. 205 of 1961 for restitution of conjugal rights against the first plaintiff. Though the petition was dismissed by the trial Court, this Court ordered restitution in C.M.A. No. 196 of 1963. Subsequent to the disposal of C.M.A. No. 196 of 1963 by this Court, the first defendant has been keeping the second defendant as his concubine in his house and did not bother to take back the first plaintiff to live with him. He also committed default in the payment of monthly maintenance to the second plaintiff. He had settled all his properties in the name of the second defendant his concubine. The plaintiffs therefore filed the suit in forma pauperis claiming maintenance for the first plaintiff at Rs. 100 per month, a sum of Rs. 2,880 towards the past maintenance a sum of Rs. 600 for residence and clothing for past three years, Rs. 50 per month for residence and clothing for the future period. A charge is also claimed over the plaint A schedule property. The prayer in respect of the second plaintiff is for future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 65 per month for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2, 40 towards past maintenance and a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards marriage expenses. For these amounts also a charge is claimed over the plaint A. Schedule property.

2. The first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the second defendant. The first defendant contended that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. He further pleaded that the claim of the first plaintiff for maintenance was not (attainable on account of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed in C.M.A. No. 196 of 1963 on the file of this Court. It was also pleaded that the second plaintiff had married one Arumugam and was therefore not entitle to get Rs. 5,000 for marriage expenses. The second plaintiff’s right for enhanced maintenance was also denied. The first defendant further stated that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get a charge over A schedule properties as they had been settled in favour of the second defendant for proper and valid consideration. The settlement deed itself was executed since the second defendant undertook to discharge the mortgage which subsisted on the suit properties.

3. The trial Court raised the necessary issues for consideration. The trial Court held that the first plaintiff was entitled to claim maintenance and it fixed the quantum of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. It disallowed the claim of the first plaintiff for Rs. 600 for residence and clothing for the past three years and Rs. 50 per month for residence and clothing for the future period. It however held that the first plaintiff would be entitled to past maintenance for three years at the rate of Rs. 50 per month.

4. As regards the second plaintiff the learned Judge held that she would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,000 for marriage expenses. He also found that the second plaintiff would be entitled to get maintenance

Click Here to Read the rest of this document