Husband living with another woman.

JUDGMENT:- This is a second appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30-1-1979 of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in A.S. No. 147 of 1978.

2. The defendant, Maharaja Nadar in the suit is the appellant herein.

3. The plaintiff, Muthukani Ammal filed the suit for maintenance. Her case is as follows :- The marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant was celebrated about 11 years prior to the institution of the suit, in the father's house of the plaintiff at Sivahthipuram, as per the caste custom and usage of the community to which they belong. Since the date of marriage, they lived happily as husband and wife. The defendant was often beating the plaintiff and was cruelly treating her and was driving her out of his house. In spite of it, the plaintiff was bearing all the cruel treatment of her husband and was living as dutiful wife. At one time, the plaintiff was charged with the commission of offence of theft. The defendant demanded the plaintiffs consent for the second marriage since they have no child. On her refusal, she was beaten and treated with cruelty. At last, the end of 1151 Andu, Adi month, the defendant beat the plaintiff and drive her from his house. He also threatened that in case she returned to his house, she would have to face dire consequences. The plaintiff apprehends that if she joins her husband, her life would be in danger. While so, in the month of Avani, the defendant married one Bommiammal, daughter of Manganatha Nadar as his second wife and they are living as husband and wife. The said marriage is invalid under law. While the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant is subsisting, the defendant has no right to marry a second wife. Therefore, the defendant is bound to pay maintenance to the plaintiff. So notice was issued to the defendant. At the time of notice, the plaintiff was not aware of the income of the defendant. Therefore, she had claimed only a sum of Rs.100/- per mensem towards maintenance. Now the plaintiff learnt that the defendant is having three mike sets and is earning. He is also doing agricultural work and earning Rs.1,000/- per month. The defendant is also doing money lending business. Considering the status of the parties and also the present cost of living, the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.150/- per month towards her maintenance. The plaintiff is also entitled to past maintenance of Rs.400/- with a charge upon the schedule mentioned property from the defendant.

4. The defendant raised the following contentions :-

The marriage of the defendant and the plaintiff took place about 11 years ago, as per the Hindu rites, custom and usage. Since marriage they were living as husband and wife. It is false to allege that the defendant ill-treated the plaintiff and drove her away to her father's house. It is also false to allege that the plaintiffs father often used to bring back the plaintiff and leave her in the defendant's house. The defendant never ill-treated the plaintiff and there is no necessity for the same. The plaintiff was very affectionate with the defendant and she was living with him happily. It is false to state that the plaintiff was charged with a commission of offence of theft. It is also false to allege that since the plaintiff and the defendant have no issues, the defendant asked for the plaintiff/respondent's consent for the second marriage. Since the plaintiff and the defendant loved each other, they got married. Without any other go, the plaintiffs father had to celebrate the marriage. Taking advantage of the love and affection of the defendant with his wife, the plaintiffs father started to blackmail the defendant and he often came and took the plaintiff to his house without the consent and permission of the defendant. On certain occasions, the defendant used to go to the house of the plaintiffs father to take her back. At last, at the beginning of Sept. 1976 the plaintiffs father came and took away the plaintiff wi