JUDGMENT :

Prayer : This Appeal Suit filed under Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, to modify the decree and judgment passed by the Family Court, Madurai in O.S.No.36 of 2010 dated 14.10.2014 and allow this appeal with costs.

The Appeal Suit is directed against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.36 of 2010 dated 14.10.2014 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.

2. The case of the plaintiff in short is as follows:-

(a) The plaintiff is the second daughter of the first defendant. Due to misunderstanding between her father and mother Clara, the first defendant deserted the plaintiff and his family members. The plaintiff's mother filed a petition for maintenance in M.C.No.2 of 1997 on the file of the Family Court on behalf of herself and other children including the plaintiff. During enquiry, on the basis of the undertaking given by the first defendant to live with the family and to maintain the children including the plaintiff, maintenance case in M.C.No.2 of 1997 was ordered to be dismissed as infructuous. Even after the undertaking given by the first defendant, he had not chosen to maintain the children including the plaintiff and the plaintiff's mother had managed to bring up her children with her little earnings and also from the personal borrowings. The first defendant has neglected to maintain the plaintiff. The plaintiff had completed her graduation in M.Sc. with great hardship and with her mother's hard earned money.

(b) Despite the best efforts made by the plaintiff, she is not able to get a suitable job and she is not able to maintain herself as she is not having any independent income of her own. The first defendant being the father is legally liable to maintain the plaintiff. The first defendant is working as a Clerk in Punjab National Bank and is drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. The plaintiff estimates that a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month is required for her maintenance. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit to declare her as indigent person and directing the first defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance and costs of the proceedings.

3. The defence taken by the first defendant in short as follows :-

(a) The plaintiff is the second daughter of the first defendant. After marriage, the plaintiff's mother Clara used to visit her mother's house very often. The first defendant, considering the welfare of the family and his children, was residing with the plaintiff's mother by leaving his own mother and unmarried sisters. The first defendant had stood as a surety for his friend in the year 1988 and he was made responsible for repayment of Rs.2,00,000/-. The plaintiff's mother had abused the first defendant and sent him out of the house in 1993. During enquiry in M.C.No.2 of 1997, the Court advised both the parties to live together and on that basis, the case was dismissed as infructuous. The first defendant had started to live with the plaintiff's family and he was allowed to stay in the house only for three months and thereafter, he was sent out of the house.

(b) The first defendant had undergone surgery for kidney problem in 1998 and he was in Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital. Despite the intimation, the plaintiff's mother had not visited the hospital. The first defendant is having heart problem and diabetic issues. The plaintiff's mother had completed D.Pharm Course and is working as a Pharmacist in Madurai Rajaji Hospital and is getting a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. The plaintiff had studied M.Sc. Computer Science and is working in a private concern. The first defendant is having debts to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- due to the medical expenses. Since the first defendant is ready and willing to live with the plaintiff and the plaintiff's mother, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month from the first de