The husband is duty bound to maintain his wife and minor daughter, and the creation of a charge over the property for maintenance is valid and legal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This First Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2020 made in O.S.No.7 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Salem.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2020 made in O.S.No.7 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Salem.

2. The respondents are the plaintiffs and appellant is defendant in O.S.No.7 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Salem. The respondents filed the said suit, claiming a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance for the 1st respondent till her life time and Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd respondent/minor daughter till attaining majority or till getting married; also to pay past maintenance of Rs.3,00,000/- from March 2016 to February 2017 and to create charge over 1st item of the suit property scheduled in the plaint. The appellant earlier filed F.C.O.P.No.166 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Salem, against the 1st respondent, seeking decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage. In the said petition, he has made various allegations of cruelty meted out by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed counter statement and denied various allegations made by the appellant. The 1st respondent, after two years of filing F.C.O.P. by the appellant, filed the present suit. The 1st respondent has made very same averments and allegations made by her in the counter statement and craved leave of this Court to treat the same as part and parcel of the plaint. In addition to the said averments, the 1st respondent has stated that appellant is partner of the joint family business of making Silver Anklets and is owning properties purchased from and out of the joint family business in his name and in the name of his father and brothers. The 1st respondent has no independent income to maintain herself and the 2nd respondent/minor daughter. The appellant is capable of paying maintenance to the respondents and claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/- for the 1st respondent till her life time and Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd respondent till she attains majority or till her marriage. The respondents also prayed to create charge over the 1st item of the suit property scheduled in the plaint.

3. The appellant filed written statement. In the written statement, he made very same averments and allegations made in the F.C.O.P. filed by him. In addition to the said averments and allegations, the appellant has stated that the 1st item of the property belongs to his father, who purchased the said property in the name of the appellant. The appellant has already transferred the same in the name of the purchaser. The appellant is not aware of the other properties mentioned in the plaint and those properties are not under the control or command of the appellant. The appellant is not earning a sum of Rs.80,000/- per month as alleged by the respondents. The appellant is jobless. He is depending upon others even for his basic needs. The 1st respondent is an affluent person and is capable of maintaining herself and minor daughter. It is the affluent person who has to maintain other spouse. The appellant is only engaged as a labour in the Silver Pattarai work. The respondents, without knowing the concept of family status, has made false averments. The respondents are not entitled for any relief of charge against the suit properties which belong to his father. The appellant is not owning any property either movable or immovable. The appellant is not having sufficient means to pay the maintenance to the respondents and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the learned Judge, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and marked 12 documents as Exs.A1 to A12. The appellant examined himself as D.W.1, examined one Saravanan as D.W.2 and marked 25 documents as Exs.B1 to B25.

5. The learned Judge considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the appellant, as husband of the 1st respondent and father