High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
Vasantha - Appellant
Versus
Chandran - Respondents
S.A. NO.820 OF 2002 & C.M.P. NOS.6571 & 6572 OF 2002
Decided On : 29 November 2002
Maintenance - Family Law - [KULBHUSHAN KUMAR VS. RAJ KUMARI AND ANOTHER (1971 (2) S.C.R. 672)] - The court discussed the entitlement of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month from 1-7-1999, the payment of value of 13 sovereign jewels, and the disentitlement of the plaintiff for the past maintenance. The court also addressed the charge created for the house property, which was set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit against her husband claiming maintenance, return of jewels, creation of charge over the house property, and permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate Court dismissed it, alleging desertion by the wife. The appellant appealed to this Court.
Finding of the Court:
The lower appellate Court's findings were based on surmises and conjectures, and did not consider the reasonings given by the trial Court. The Court found that the husband did not take any effort to take the wife back to the matrimonial home, and upheld the maintenance and return of jewels, but set aside the relief of charge created for the house property.
Issues: Validity of the lower appellate Court's dismissal of the suit, liability of the defendant to maintain his wife, proof of the defendant taking 13 sovereign jewels, and entitlement of the defendant to the house property.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the lower appellate Court's dismissal was based on surmises and conjectures, and upheld the maintenance and return of jewels. The Court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief regarding the charge created on the house property, as there was no evidence of the defendant's contribution to the property.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, the lower appellate Court's judgment and decree were set aside, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were restored in part, with the relief of maintenance, payment of value of 13 sovereign jewels, and disentitlement of the plaintiff for the past maintenance. The relief of charge created for the house property was set aside.
Vasantha, the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit against her husband, Chandran, the respondent/defendant claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,750/- per month from the date of suit till her death, for the past maintenance at the rate of Rs.74,250/-, for return of 13 sovereign jewels or its value at the rate of Rs.39,000/-, for creating charge over the house property, namely, the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property.
2. The trial Court decreed the suit, directing the defendant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance from the date of suit, i.e.1-7-1999 to the appellant and also directed the defendant to pay Rs.39,000/- being the value of 13 sovereign jewels given as seedhana jewels for the marriage. The trial Court also created charge over the house property and granted permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to alienate the same. The trial Court dismissed the suit as against the claim for past maintenance. Aggrieved by the said findings of the trial Court, the defendant/husband filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, holding that the wife deserted her husband. This judgment is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this second appeal by the appellant/wife.
3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-
"(a) The marriage between the plaintiff and defendant was solemnized on 19-3-1995 and they were living together about one year. Since the defendant's mother told him that the period was not good to lead matrimonial life, the defendant took the appellant and left her in her parent's home. Subsequently, the defendant did not care to come and take her to the matrimonial home. Despite several request made by the parents of the appellant, the defendant was not inclined to take her back as she was black in colour.
(b) On 22-8-1998, the appellant gave a complaint to All Women Police Station, Erode regarding refusal of her husband to take the plaintiff back. On 31-8-1998, she has also sent a notice claiming maintenance. On 5-9-1998, the defendant sent a reply containing false assertions.
(c) Since the husband was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month in the construction work and also owning a house property, the plaintiff would be entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month and also entitled for return of 13 sovereign jewels or its value worth about Rs.39,000/- and also prayed for the other reliefs as stated above."
4. The suit was contested by the defendant stating that the plaintiff and defendant were living together for one year and that he was compelled by the father of the appellant to stay in Karnataka where the father of the plaintiff was working. Though the defendant was living for some time in Karnataka at the instance of his father-in-law, he was insulted there and sent back home, and as such, the wife only deserted him. Consequently, the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief sought for in the suit.
5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 besides two other witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3.
6. Ultimately, decree was passed by the trial Court to the effect that the plaintiff would be entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- from 1-7-1999, the date of suit and the defendant was directed to pay Rs.39,000/- being the value of 13 sovereign jewels which was given as seedhana jewels at the time of marriage. A charge was also created on the suit property by the trial Court with a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the same. As far as the past maintenance claim is concerned, the suit was dismissed.
7. In the appeal filed by the defendant, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that since there is no proper reason for the wife to live separately, she would not be entitled to any of th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.