Enhanced maintenance for deserted wife considering inflation, husband's salary, and deliberate non-appearance; children's post-majority maintenance unaltered.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

Plaintiffs in O.S.No.40 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.12.2006, are the appellants herein.

2. The first appellant Jayalakshmi is the mother of appellants 2 and 3 Jamuna and Manojkumar. Second appellant was born on 26.12.1992 and the third appellant was born on 22.09.1995. The second appellant had attained the age of majority on 26.12.2010 and has married also. The third appellant had attained the age of majority on 22.09.2013. All the appellants had filed the suit seeking maintenance against the respondent, who is the husband of the first appellant, for a sum of Rs.1500/- per month for the first appellant and a total sum of Rs.1500/- per month for the second and third appellants.

3. By judgment dated 06.12.2006, the II Additional Family Court had granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for each one of the three appellants payable from the date of institution of the suit viz., 25.5.2000.

4. Notice had been directed to the respondent and though a counsel had entered appearance, consistently, there had been no representation on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, it is evident that the respondent is not interested in giving instructions to his counsel to appear and represent before this court. 5. Since the second and third appellant had attained the age of majority, the cause title had been amended and the learned counsel for the first appellant represents for them also.

6. It is the contention of the appellants that the respondent was drawing a salary of Rs.8000/- per month even at the time of institution of the suit. He was employed in a private company, but, it had been contended that he had deserted the three appellants and failed to maintain them. The fact that the first appellant was married to the respondent is neither denied nor disputed. Similarly, the fact that the second and third appellants are the children born to the first appellant and the respondent is also neither denied nor disputed. In the written statement of the respondent, he had only denied that he was drawing a salary of Rs.8000/-. He had further contended that the first appellant was dependent on her brother and mother. It evidently would mean that he was not taking care of the first appellant. It is also stated that the first appellant was earning Rs.5000 per month but, she was not spending any money towards the education of the second and third appellants. The only issue raised was that the first appellant was picking up quarrels with him for petty problems. But, that cannot be taken as a ground to deny maintenance to the appellants in their status as wife and children. 7. The learned Trial Judge, while deciding the quantum of maintenance, had examined the evidence produced viz., copy of the earlier maintenance petition and copy of the maintenance order in M.C.No.225 of 1996 filed under Section 125 CPC, wherein Rs.300/- per month was ordered to be paid to the first appellant and a sum of Rs.150/- each to the second and third appellants. It is also contended that such maintenance was also not paid till the institution of the present suit. The respondent had also contended that she was working in an export company earning Rs.5000/- per month, however, in his cross- examination, the respondent was not able to state even the name of the Company where the first appellant was alleged to have been working. The Trial Court, therefore, did not take into consideration that particular evidence of the respondent. The Trial Court had held that the respondent was working in Telephone Department and earning a sum of Rs.8000/- per month. Taki