Present appeal is by the defendant aggrieved by the

judgment

and

decree

dated

07.04.2014

passed

in

R.A.No.38/2012 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to the as ‘the first

appellate Court’) by which the first appellate Court dismissing

the appeal filed by the appellant with costs confirmed the

judgment and decree dated 07.04.2012 passed by the I

Additional Civil Judge, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

trial Court’) in O.S.No.864/2009 by which the trial Court had

directed the appellant herein to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to

plaintiff No.1 towards maintenance and Rs.500/- per month to

each plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 as long as they are minors or till their

marriage, whichever is later. Further by the said judgment and

decree, the trial Court had created charge on the suit property

in respect of maintenance awarded as above.

Brief facts of the case are that; the above suit was

filed by the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, who are the wife and children

respectively of the defendant, on the premise that the marriage

of plaintiff No.1 with the defendant was solemnized on

- 3 -

24.06.1993 at Veerabhadreshwar Temple Kalyan Mantap,

Ranebennur. Out of the said wedlock, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were

born on 12.08.1994 and 05.07.1997 respectively. That the suit

schedule is the residential site purchased by the defendant

under a registered deed of sale dated 26.03.2001. The

defendant had constructed the residential house thereon. The

defendant was employed as Engineer in BSNL and plaintiff No.1

and the defendant lived happily up to the year 2008 when the

defendant was transferred to Basavakalyan Branch at Bidar

district. That after the transfer to Basavakalyan, the defendant

started neglecting to maintain the plaintiffs. He did not even

visit the residence of the plaintiffs and stopped sending money

for maintenance. Plaintiff No.1 suspecting the bonafide of the

respondent and being apprehensive of the defendant, trying to

alienate suit schedule property to the stranger, depriving

shelter of the plaintiffs, they filed the suit seeking the aforesaid

reliefs. The plaintiff No.1 is a housewife and plaintiff Nos.2 and

3 were pursuing their 9^th and 7^th standard studies at the time of

filing of the suit.

The defendant on service of summons appeared

and filed written statement contending that the suit schedule

- 4 -

property is his self acquired property and the plaintiffs had no

right, title or interest over the same. That he had every right to

deal with the suit property in the manner he deemed fit and

proper. He denied the allegations of he neglecting the plaintiffs

after his transfer to Basavakalayan. He specifically contended

that he had taken care of the plaintiffs with love and care as a

husband and as a father. That he has spent enough amount for

their maintenance and education. He denied the suspicion of

plaintiff No.1 regarding his relationship with a lady. He denied

the allegation of he trying to alienate the suit schedule property

with an intension of throwing out the plaintiffs from the house.

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

4.

The trial Court on the aforesaid pleadings, framed

the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has

failed or refused to maintain them?

2. Whether

the

plaintiffs

are

entitled

to

any

maintenance amount? If so, to what extent?

3. Whether the plaintiffs have any legal right of

restraining the defendant from alienating the suit

property?

4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is

trying to illegally alienate the suit property to the

third persons?

- 5 -

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the permanent

injunction as prayed for in the suit?

6. What order or decree?

5.

Plaintiff

No.1 examined herself as PW1 and

produced four documents marked as Exs.P1 to P4. The

defendant examined himself as DW1 and closed his side. On

appreciation of evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit as

above. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant