Judgment :- 1. These Second Appeals have been preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 4.8.1988 passed in A.S. Nos. 86 of 1987 and 176 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode reversing the judgment and decree awarding maintenance and creating a charge over the A schedule property, dated 24.12.1986 passed in O.S. No. 98 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam and confirming the disallowed portion of the decree respectively. 2. In these appeals, the appellant wife will be referred to as the plaintiff and the respondent husband will be referred to as the defendant. 3. The Plaintiff instituted the suit O.S. No. 98 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/ per month and for a house rent of Rs. 100/- per month and for recovery of B to D Schedule or their value and for creating a charge over the ‘A’ schedule for the due payment of maintenance on the allegation the defendant married her three years prior to the suit and the marriage was celebrated at Mettur in her parents house. After the mariage, the plainti ff was living in the house of the husband. Within three months of the marriage, her husband began to ill-treat her by beating and compelled her to get more dowry from her parents. As substantial presents were given at the time of marriage itself, she refused to go to her parents house to get more dowry. Ultimately, her husband drove her from his house and without finding any alternative, the plaintiff went to her parents house and informed them the ill-treatment meted out to her. In the year 1983, a panchayat was convened in the presence of village elders and on the assurance given by her husband that he would treat her kindly and there will not be any ill-treatment, she went to her matrimonial home and once again began her married life. However, on the pretext she did not conceive she was again ill-treated and was compelled to get more dowry. Her mother-in-law took her from the fields to the house and removed the jewels worn by her. The vessels worth Rs. 2000/- and a buffalo valued Rs. 700/- presented to the plaintiff were also appropriated by her husband. On 30.9.1983, the plaintiff gave a complaint in the Gobichettipalayam Police Station. Her mother-in-law took her from the fields to the house and removed the jewels worn by her. The vessels worth Rs. 2000/- and a buffalo valued Rs. 700/- presented to the plaintiff were also appropriated by her husband. On 30.9.1983, the plaintiff gave a complaint in the Gobichettipalayam Police Station. Even though the husband promised in the police station that he would take her to his house and treat her affectionately, he did not do so. The plaintiff is living in her parents house and they find it d ifficult to maintain her with their meagre income. Therefore, she was compelled to file the suit to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and Rs. 100/- as house rent and recover possession of the ‘B’ schedule jewels, the ‘C schedule vessels and the ‘D’ schedule cattle and also past arrears of Rs. 4,140/-. 4. The defendant resisted the suit stating within three months of the marriage, the plaintiff began to visit her parents house very often. She also took away jewels worth Rs. 20,000/- given to her by the husband and kept the same in her parents house and refused to bring them. She told before the panchayatdars she is not willing to live with the defendant and also refused to bring the jewels presented to her by him. For discharging the loan borrowed for celebrating the marriage, 55 cents of land was sold by the defendant and some other item was mortgaged to raise a loan. The allegation that the defendant had mortgaged and sold the lands in favour of his sister to defeat the rights of the plaintiff to get maintenane is not true. The plaintiff is having illicit intimacy with one Subramaniam. The plaintiff alone deserted and left the matrimonial home and, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. 5. On the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam framed the necessary issues. On a consideration of the evidence placed before him, the trial Judge concluded that the illtreatment alleged by the plaintiff is true and that she had been driven out of the matrimonial home and was entitled to maintenance. He directed the defendant to pay maintenance of Rs. 150/- p.m. and Rs. 50/- towards house rent and also created a charge on the ‘A’ schedule property and dismissed t he suit in other respects. 6. He directed the defendant to pay maintenance of Rs. 150/- p.m. and Rs. 50/- towards house rent and also created a charge on the ‘A’ schedule property and dismissed t he suit in other respects. 6. Aggrieved with the above judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant preferred A.S. No. 86 of 1987 while A.S. No. 176 of 1987 was preferred by the plaintiff regarding the disallowed portion of the reliefs prayed by her. The learned Principal District Judge, Erode took both the appeals together and by his common judgment dated 4.8.1988 and for the reasons assigned by him in the judgment, allowed A.S. No. 86 of 1987, set aside the award of maintenance granted by the lower court. He also dismissed A.S. No. 176 of 1987 and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Judge, the correctness of which is being challenged by the plaintiff in these Second Appeals. 7. The points for determination are: — 1) Whether the first appellate Judge committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court awarding maintenance and creating charge over the ‘A’ schedule property on no evidence? and 2) Whether the first appellate Judge is not justified in disallowing the appeal in respect of the disallowed portion of the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff in the suit? 8. Points No. 1 and 2 : — The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff strenuously contended that the trial Judge had given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons for reaching the conclusion that the plaintiff had been ill-treated by her husband and her mother-in-law and they continued to ill-treat the plaintiff after she joined with him after the panchayat and compelled her to get more dowry from the parents house and they did not mend their ways even after the conciliation talks in the police station and the first appellate Judge has committed a grave error in rejecting the reasons given by the trial Judge by his sweeping remark that the evidence of the plaintiff wife is not believable without assigning any reason as per law. It was also submitted the first appellate Judge did not appreciate the evidence with an open mind and due to the reason the mother of the plaintiff was not amenable to the compromise proposal suggested by him (first appellate Judge) in the open Court, he had reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court awarding maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month and R.s.50/- towards house rent and creating a charge over the ‘A’ schedule property for the due payment of the said amounts. It was further submitted the trial Judge ought to have believed the evidence of the plaintiff that vessels, jewels and buffalo as described in schedules ‘B’ to ‘D’ in the plaint have been appropriated by the husband and he should have also directed recovery of those items or in the alternative their value by the plai ntiff and the first appellate Judge is not justified in disallowing that portion of the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff in the appeal. 9. I have carefully analysed the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties in the trial Court and considered the same carefully. I am of the view the plaintiff had given satisfactory and convincing evidence that she had been beaten and ill-treated by the husband within three months of the marriage and was compelled to go to the matrimonial home and bring more dowry. It is also made out from the evidence of the plaintiff that after the talks before the panchayatdars and on the assurance of the husband, the plaintiff went to the matrimonial home with fond hope she would be treated kindly but within a short time, her expectations became untrue and once again she had been beaten by the husband and her mother-in-law and she was driven out of the house without finding any other alternative, the plaintiff went to her parents house. I am also satisfied that eventhough the defendant husband promised in the police station during the conciliation talks that he would not ill-treat his wife thereafter and she would be looked after affectionately, he did not stick to his words or took the plaintiff to his house and continued his married life. On the other hand, he did not take his wife and left her to remain in her parental home without caring for her and completely neglected to maintain her. On the other hand, he did not take his wife and left her to remain in her parental home without caring for her and completely neglected to maintain her. Even though the defendant husband has alleged the wife is having illicit intimacy with one Subramaniam, he did not choose to adduce satisfactory and convincing evidence that there is any such illicit relationship or the wife deserted him intentionally and went to her parents house and I am satisfied the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance. 10. A perusal of the judgment of the first appellate Judge shows, that no reasons have been given for disbelieving the evidence of the plaintiff. In my opinion, for the events that happened in the matrimonial home which is a different village, it is unreasonable for the court to expect independent evidence. In matters of this sort where ill-treatment and cruelty are alleged by the husband, the persons belonging to the matrimonial home would not be prepared to give evidence on behalf of the wife and even the neighbours would be highly hesitant to support the case of the wife as she is a stranger. However, I hasten to add that the evidence of the wife need not be accepted on its face value and it has to be tested on the touchstone of cross-examination. An impartial, indepth analysis of the evidence of the plaintiff shows that she had been beaten and ill-treated by the husband and mother-in-law and the allegation of unchastity had been attributed to her without any basis. The defendant husband had not alleged that she is having illicit intimacy with one Subramaniam in his reply notice but developed such a case only during his evidence in the Court. There is absolutely no need for a Hindu wife to allege ill-treatment and cruelty against the husband when in reality he is kind and affectionate towards her and threfore I am clearly of the view that the first appellate Judge has committed a grave error in disbelieving the evidence of the plaintiff regarding ill-treatment and demand of more dowry. 11. So far as the appropriation of the vessels, jewels and also the buffalo valued at Rs. 700/-, I am of the opinion the trial Judge is correct in his observation that there is no acceptable evidence to show that vessels and jewels have been appropriated. 11. So far as the appropriation of the vessels, jewels and also the buffalo valued at Rs. 700/-, I am of the opinion the trial Judge is correct in his observation that there is no acceptable evidence to show that vessels and jewels have been appropriated. However, I am satisfied that a buffalo presented to the wife by her parents had been appropriated by the husband and she is entitled to recover the buffalo or its value of Rs. 700/-. 12. Now we have to find out what will be the reasonable maintenance that has to be awarded to the plaintiff wife. As per the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the husband is owning 50 cents of nanja in which crops are harvested twice a year. Further, he is also having I acre and 10 cents of dry land with a pump set. From the above lands he is getting an average income of Rs 10.000/- to Rs 15.000/- per year. The learned trial Judge, on a consideration of the evidence, found the defendant husband had executed a sale deed in favour of his sister, the second defendant for Rs. 20.000/- in respect of one of the items of land and he had mortgaged the other item of land for Rs. 10,000/- in favour of third plaintiff, his brother which have been done after the plaintiff filed the suit for maintenance and that the defendant husband had intentionally done so to defeat the rights of the plaintiff to get maintenance. Even though it is deposed on behalf of the husband that he gets only an income of Rs. 1500/- per year from the lands, the learned District Munsif rightly disbelieved the same. Further, the argument advanced on behalf of the defendant husband, his wife is supported by her parents is also unacceptable. In the decision reported in 1999 (III) M.L.J. 685 . ( Ramadas v. Malathi ), a learned Judge of this Court after reference to the decided cases on this point held when a wife, comes forward with a claim that she is unable to maintain herself, it is for the husband to prove the contrary. The wife getting support from her parents’ is not a ground to reject her claim for maintenance and that wife is entitled to live according to the status of the husband. The wife getting support from her parents’ is not a ground to reject her claim for maintenance and that wife is entitled to live according to the status of the husband. So far as the quantum of maintenance to be awarded, the Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 1997 3 L.W. 480 = (1997) 7 S.C.C. 7 ( Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge ) in paras 8 and 9 has held: — “8..No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate. 9. The question then arises as to from which date the wife would be entitled to claim the enhanced amount of the maintenance pendente lite. If the wife has no source of income it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and also the children of the marriage on the basis of the provisions contained in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Her right to claim maintenance fructifies on the date of the filing of the petition for divorce under the Act. Having thus fixed the date as the filing of the petition for divorce, it is not always that the Court has to grant the maintenance from that date. The court has discretion in the matter as to from which date maintenance under Section 24 of the Act should be granted. The discretion of the Court would depend upon multiple circumstances, which are to be kept in view. The court has discretion in the matter as to from which date maintenance under Section 24 of the Act should be granted. The discretion of the Court would depend upon multiple circumstances, which are to be kept in view. These could be the time taken to serve the respondent in the petition; the date of filing of the application under Sec. 24 of the Act; conduct of the parties in the proceedings; averments made in the application and the reply thereto; the tendency of the wife to inflate the income out of all proportion and that of the husband to suppress the same; and the like. There has to be honesty of purpose in both the parties which unfortunately we find lacking in this case ”(Italics supplied). On a careful analysis of the evidence on record, I am satisfied that the first appellate Judge had committed a manifest error in holding the mother of the plaintiff had detained her in her house and instigated her to file the petition for maintenance. On the other hand, it is clear because of the ill-treatment and beating by the husband, the plaintiff was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and seek asylum, in the house of her parents and learned sub-Judge is correct in his conclusion and the first appellate Judge ought not to have interfered in the said finding and set aside the order of maintenace. However, I am of the view that the award of maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month and Rs. 50/- towards house rent is not sufficient and adequate, considering the abnormal rise in prices of the essential commodities and clothing material. I am also satisfied the husband had executed the sale deed and mortgage deed only to defeat the rights of the plaintiff for maintenance and he will be getting not less than Rs. 7,500/- per month as income from his landed properties. In my opinion, a sum of Rs. 275/- per month and Rs. 75/- towards house rent allowance would be reasonable maintenance and the order of the learned District Munsif has to be modified to that extent and that of the learned first appellate Judge has to be set aside. 13. 7,500/- per month as income from his landed properties. In my opinion, a sum of Rs. 275/- per month and Rs. 75/- towards house rent allowance would be reasonable maintenance and the order of the learned District Munsif has to be modified to that extent and that of the learned first appellate Judge has to be set aside. 13. In the result, S.A. No. 1510 of 1988 is allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode in A.S. No. 86 of 1987 are set aside and that of the learned subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam are restored, with the modification that the appellant wife is entitled to a decree for maintenance of Rs. 275/- per month and Rs. 75/- towards house rent allowance. There shall be a charge over the ‘A’ schedule properties for the due payment of maintenance amount as ordered by the learned Subordinate Judge. The appellant wife is entitled to costs throughout. S.A. No. 1511 of 1988 is allowed in part and the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode in A.S. No. 176 of 1987 are set aside and the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam is modified to the extent that the appellant wife is entitled to recover the buffalo or its value of Rs. 700/- claimed by her and in other respects, the disallowed portion of the decree so far as the vessels and jewels are confirmed. The appellant/wife is entitled to proportionate costs throughout.