The court ruled that joint family properties must be distinguished from separate properties, affirming the husband's duty to maintain his wife.

COMMON JUDGEMENT

 A.S. No. 211 of 2022 has been filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree granting a preliminary decree for a partition of one-half share in respect of suit Item No. 3 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of plaint, while Cross Objection No. 96 of 2022 has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging the dismissal of the suit for the part of their claim for partition in respect of suit Item Nos. 1 and 2.

2.1 The appellant in A.S.No.211 of 2022 and the respondent in the Cross Objection No.96 of 2022 is the defendant, and the respondents in A.S.No.211 of 2022 and the appellants in Cross Objection No.96 of 2022 are the plaintiffs in the suit.

2.2 The parties in the appeal and cross objection will now be referred to according to their array in the litigation for convenience and to prevent misunderstandings.

3.0 The plaintiffs pleaded in their plaint as follows:-

3.1 The plaintiffs are the wife and daughter of the defendant. The 1st plaintiff married the defendant 32 years ago, and through their lawful wedlock, a male child named Chandrasekar, and a female child, the 2nd plaintiff named Nithya, were born. The plaintiffs and the defendant constitute a Hindu Undivided Joint Family.

3.2 The 1st plaintiff and the defendant were living happily as husband and wife for 6 years, and thereafter, the attitude of the defendant got changed like anything, and he had started to quarrel with the 1st plaintiff without any reason. The character of the defendant had become worse day by day.

3.3 While so, the 2nd plaintiff was given in marriage in a simple manner.

The 2nd plaintiff was not given any sreedhan. The 1st plaintiff had tried her level best to reform the defendant for leading a happy married life with him, but all her sincere efforts went in vain.

3.4 While so in 2009, all of a sudden, the defendant quarrelled with the 1st plaintiff without any reason and had driven her out from the matrimonial home and retained her son, Chandrasekar, alone with him. Thereafter, the defendant was not amenable to any kind of settlement made by the relatives or mediators. The defendant has been leading a wayward life all along with his son. The defendant neglected to maintain the 1st plaintiff. The marital bond between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant is still subsisting. While so, on 29.03.2015, their son died by committing suicide. Even after the death of their only son, there is no change in the attitude of the defendant.

3.5 The suit properties are undivided joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant was having ancestral properties covered under Patta Nos. 589, 185, and 321 of Selathampatty village in Salem Taluk. He was in common possession and enjoyment of the same with his father, Marimuthu; brother, Kandasamy; and sisters, Rajammal and Kamala. Out of the income from the ancestral properties and out of the joint family income, the suit Item No. 1 of the property was purchased in the name of the defendant through a registered sale deed dated 25.02.1993 vide Doc. No. 429 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Suramangalam; the suit Item No. 2 of the property was gifted in favor of the defendant by his father, Marimuthu, through a registered settlement deed dated 16.04.2010 vide Doc. No. 2851 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Suramangalam. While so, on 29.05.2012, the defendant, his father, brother, and sisters partitioned their ancestral properties through a registered partition deed vide doc. No. 3431 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Suramangalam. The properties shown under B-Schedule in the said partition deed were allotted to the share of the defendant. By throwing all these properties into one hotchpotch, the defendant was in common possession and enjoym