JUDGMENT

The defendant, in a suit for maintenance, has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Salem in O.S.No.23 of 2005. The parties in this appeal are referred to in the same rank as before the Family Court.

2.Case of the plaintiff:-

The plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.23 of 2005 claiming maintenance of a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, till her life time and to create a charge over the property described in the suit schedule. The plaintiff had listed three items of properties. It is her case, that she and the defendant had got married on 25.12.1985 and after marriage had been living as husband and wife in the matrimonial home till 1993. In order to provide security to her, her father had purchased a house in Salem on 01.12.1986 and from the year 1994, the plaintiff and the defendant were residing at this place.

3.Out of the wedlock, the plaintiff had given birth to a daughter Nagalakshmi on 10.04.2000 and a son Naganathan on 15.07.2002. It is the case of the plaintiff that the demeanor of the defendant had changed, after the birth of his daughter and he started having illicit intimacy with other women. The plaintiff was subject to physical abuse, if she questioned his activities. The defendant's behavior has deteriorated and it was impossible for the plaintiff to continue living with him.

4.The defendant was carrying on business in old motors and the plaintiff's father had invested money into a vessel business, which was started in the name of the plaintiff. The properties were acquired at several places, from out of the income of this business. The plaintiff had started losing interest in matrimonial life as he started seeing money and he was compelling the plaintiff to sign in a few blank papers and stamp papers and also compelling her to grant him a divorce.

5.During the year 1999-2000, the activities of the defendant had turned so bad that he had brought a concubine into the matrimonial house by name Vijayalakshmi. He proclaimed her to be his second wife and started living with her. The defendant took possession of all the properties, not only the one standing in his name but also standing in the name of the plaintiff and he threatened the plaintiff that if she does not consent for a divorce, he would sell away all the properties. After the year 1999-2000, the defendant had also stopped paying any maintenance to the plaintiff as well as her minor daughter (the son was yet to be born). The plaintiff therefore took shelter in her parental home.

6.Thereafter, the defendant had filed a petition for divorce in F.C.O.P.No.104 of 2000 on the file of the Family Court, Salem. While the said petition was pending, well wishers of the defendant and the plaintiff tried to negotiate a settlement and thereafter, the defendant agreed to take back the plaintiff and had expressed regret for his action. The plaintiff believed the words of the defendant and resumed co-habitation with the defendant. Thereafter, the minor son Naganathan was born to the two. The defendant ultimately had not pressed the divorce petition only on 13.05.2003. Simultaneously, the defendant had also filed a suit for bare injunction against the plaintiff in O.S.No.268 of 2003 and the suit was dismissed for default on 22.08.2003.

7.Ultimately, they parted way with the defendant deserting the plaintiff and living separately in the house which belonged to the plaintiff. The defendant continued residence in the suit 1st item of the property, standing in the name of the defendant. However, she did not receive any maintenance from the defendant and she had to not only maintain herself but also her minor children. It was her case that the defendant had property worth over a sum of Rs.22 lakhs as self acquired properties apart from the joint family properties which are worth over a sum of Rs.25 lakhs and he was earning a monthly income of Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, the defendant has come forward with the suit for maintenance.

8.Written Statement of the defe