Ved Prakash Vaish, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Satish Chandra Kashish, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The appellant-husband has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.) against the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2006 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gonda in Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2006 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 herein-wife was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay the maintenance from the date of filing of the suit.

3. Succinctly stating that the facts of the case are that Smt. Kiran Srivastava (respondent No. 3 herein/plaintiff in the regular suit) filed a suit for maintenance, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 229 of 1999 titled as Smt. Kiran Srivastava vs. Ganga Prasad Srivastava. The case of respondent No. 3 is that she was married with Ganga Prasad Srivastava (appellant herein) in the year 1985 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies, after marriage they started living as husband and wife; in the year 1987, the respondent again married with one Rekha; the petitioner was tortured and she was turned out from the matrimonial house in the month of September 1994 and she is living separately; the petitioner is not employed, she is not earning and her father is unable to maintain her. It was also averred that the defendant (appellant herein) is working as Additional Engineer at Barabanki and his income is Rs. 4,000/- per month. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards maintenance with effect from September 1994.

4. The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant by filing written statement. The appellant/defendant denied the allegations made in the plaint. In the additional statement, it is stated that the marriage was solemnized on 09.05.1985 without disclosing acute leprosy disease. It was stated that the parents of the petitioner took her in the month of July, 1985 for necessary treatment and thereafter she did not return back. It was also stated that the plaintiff is intermediate pass and was giving tuitions and earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. It was denied that the appellant/defendant has remarried. It was also stated that he is maintaining his ailing parents and siblings.

5. On the pleadings of parties following issues were framed by learned trial court:-

¼1½ D;k okfnuh okn i= esa nf'kZr vk/kkjksa ij Áfroknh ls Hkj.k&iks"k.k dk okafNr vuqrks"k ikus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS \

¼2½ D;k okfnuh dks dksbZ okn gsrqd ÁkIr gS \

¼3½ D;k okfnuh us Áfroknh ds lkFk /kks[kk nsdj viuk fookg fd;k Fkk \

¼4½ D;k fyf[kr dFku esa fd;s x;s vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij Áfroknh okfnuh dks tqykbZ 85 ls vfHkR;Dr fd;s gq, gS \

¼5½ D;k okfnuh fdlh vU; vuqrks"k dks ÁkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS \

6. By judgment and decree dated 7th January, 2006, the suit was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Devision), Gonda and the appellant-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month towards maintenance from the date of judgment, by 7th day of each month to the plaintiff, the said amount would be paid until she remarries.

7. Against the said judgment and decree dated 07.01.2006 the respondent No. 3 herein filed a Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2006, she claimed that the maintenance should have been awarded from the date of filing of the suit along with interest 17 % per annum.

8. Vide judgment and decree dated 10.07.2006, the appeal was partly allowed, judgment and decree dated 07.01.2006 was modified and the defendant (appellant herein) was directed to pay maintenance Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit, that is, 26.03.1999 and the appellant/defendant was directed to pay arrears of maintenance within two months.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant (husband) has preferred the present second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. The defendant in the original suit is the appellant, plaintiff is respondent No. 3 in the present a