Judgment : 1. The defendant in O.S.No.417 of 1984 on the file of District Munsif Court, Harur, has preferred the present second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.81 of 1986 on the file of District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri dated 30.6.1989 reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 14.9.1984. 2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff/wife filed a suit against the defendant/husband claiming a sum of Rs.500 per month by way of maintenance. Their marriage took place on 26.8.1977 and they had no issues. They lived separately and amicably in Kanichi village for ten months. The defendant has been calling upon the plaintiff to approach her father to purchase a motor cycle for him and as the plaintiff was reluctant, he abused her and later snatched the Thali from her neck and sent her away. Th ere was panchayat also; but, however, the defendant was adamant in getting a motor cycle and when the plaintiff’s father has expressed his inability to comply with the condition, he refused to take his wife and live with her. The defendant sent a notice through counsel containing false averments and it was suitably replied. The defendant has deserted the plaintiff without any reasonable cause and wilfully neglected her for more than 4 years. The joint family of the defendant owns' more than 50 acres of land having 3 pumpsets and also a coconut thope consisting of more than 2000 trees, wherein the defendant has got l/5th share besides the defendant is the proprietor of a cinema theatre and they would be getting an annual income of Rs.25,000 in all the properties. She is now under the care and protection of her parents and she has no other source of income. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant filed the written statement admitting the marriage between the parties. He denied the various averments made in the plaint and contended that he never demanded any motor cycle and he never ill-treated her or drove her out of the house. The plaintiff’s family is an affluent family and the plaintiff at the instance of her father had evaded and refused to come and live with him. He denied the various averments made in the plaint and contended that he never demanded any motor cycle and he never ill-treated her or drove her out of the house. The plaintiff’s family is an affluent family and the plaintiff at the instance of her father had evaded and refused to come and live with him. In spite of several attempts made by him to bring her back, the defendant was constrained to issue a notice dated 2 7.1.1979 calling upon her to return to his house with the jewels carried away by her with an extent of 25 sovereigns. She sent a belated reply dated 5.3.1979, but she did not return to the defendant's house. After the notice also, the defendant had sent his father to bring her, but she did not come back. He also denied the alleged panchayat as the plaintiff had deserted him without any reasonable cause. She is not entitled to claim any maintenance. If really the plaintiff was bona fide willing to come and live with him, nothing prevented her from coming to the house of the defendant. The defendant also denied the ownership of 50 acres of land and other coconut trees, etc. The defendant is not owning any cinema theatre and not getting a sum of Rs.25,000 per annum. There is absolutely no necessity for the plaintiff to get maintenance. The plaintiff is not justified in living separately and the claim of Rs.500 per month is also excessive. 4. The trial court framed 3 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.l to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked and on the side of the defendant, D.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. The trial court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.81 of 1986 and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and awarded a sum of Rs.400 per month by way of maintenance and aggrieved against this, the defendant has come forward with the present second appeal. 5. 5. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (1) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has refused to accompany the defendant only in an emotional mood, without ascertaining her real intention by calling her before the Court ? (2) Whether the finding of the lower appellate court with regard to the income of the defendant is vitiated as the same is not based on any evidence ? 6. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 7. The plaintiff filed the suit for maintenance against her husband/defendant herein claiming a sum of Rs.500 per month. There is no dispute, that their marriage took place on 26.8.1977; but according to the plaintiff, they lived together for a period of ten months, whereas according to the defendant, they lived together only for few months. P.W.1 is the plaintiff and P.W.2 is her father and P.W.3 is the panchayatdar. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and D.W.2 is a person cultivating the lands of the father of D.W.1 and, as such, he is an interested witnesses. The trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, whereas the lower appellate court reversed the finding and came to the conclusion that there was justifiable cause for the plaintiff to live separately and she is also entitled to claim a sum of Rs.400 per month by way of maintenance. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that the lower appellate court failed to consider that the trial Judge has the advantage of seeing the witnesses in person and hence the assessment with regard to the demeanour of the witnesses must be given due weight. It also failed to consider that when the defendant has given notice first asking the parents of the plaintiff to bring her and to leave her with him, there is no necessity for the plaintiff or her parents to ask for a date to bring the plaintiff. The alleged demand made by the defendant for the purchase of motor cycle has not been established by the plaintiff. When the alleged incident had taken place in August, 1978, the plaintiff would not have kept quiet till January, 1989 and as such, the conduct of the plaintiff clearly establishes that the allegation made by her is totally false. The alleged demand made by the defendant for the purchase of motor cycle has not been established by the plaintiff. When the alleged incident had taken place in August, 1978, the plaintiff would not have kept quiet till January, 1989 and as such, the conduct of the plaintiff clearly establishes that the allegation made by her is totally false. In any event, the quantum of maintenance decreed is excessive. 9. It appears during trial, an offer has been made by the defendant to take the plaintiff from the Court and for which, P.W.1 has given a reply that she has to come only from the house. It was misunderstood by the trial court and took a prejudicial view against the plaintiff and ultimately dismissed the suit. Simply because D.W.1 had sent a notice at the earliest point of time calling upon her to come and live with him, it will not conclude that the case of the defendant alone would be true. Similarly, the other observation that P.W.1 failed to give any complaint to the police immediately after snatching of Thali is not a proper appreciation. Admittedly the notice sent by D.W.1 has been suitably replied by the plaintiff also. The short question that has to be considered is whether there are valid and justifiable cause for P.W.1 to live separately and whether the defendant is liable to pay maintenance and if so, to what amount ? 10. P.Ws. l and 2 categorically stated about the marriage and the subsequent events. It appears that D.W.1 had made a demand with P.Ws.l and 2 to purchase a motor cycle and when the same has not been fulfilled, P.W.1 was constrained to live separately. The evidence further disclosed that there was a panchayat by P.W.3 and two other persons, wherein also D.W.1 had insisted the supply of the motor cycle or payment of Rs.l0,000. When the same has not been complied with, D.W.1 was not interested in taking back P.W.1 and there was necessity for her to live separately along with her parents. But the learned counsel for the appellant contended that he had made attempts to secure her, but she did not come and live with him and her father was an affluent person. Moreover, P.W.1 is employed as an instructor in a tailoring class and earning substantial money and there was no necessity for her to get any amount. But the learned counsel for the appellant contended that he had made attempts to secure her, but she did not come and live with him and her father was an affluent person. Moreover, P.W.1 is employed as an instructor in a tailoring class and earning substantial money and there was no necessity for her to get any amount. D.W.1 also denied that his family own 50 acres of land or any cinema theatre as put forth by P.Ws.l to 3. 11. The lower appellate court had correctly considered the evidence of P.Ws.l to 3 as well as D.Ws.l and 2. There was absolutely no necessity for convening a panchayat unless there was misunderstanding between the parties. P.W.3 appears to be an independent witness and he had absolutely no motive to give false evidence against D.W.1. There is no reason to discredit the testimony of P.W.3. His evidence only establishes that D.W.1 was insisting for a motor cycle and as it was not complied with, P.W.1 was made to live separately with her parents. As adverted to, the evidence of D.W.2 is tainted with interest and prejudice and it was rightly rejected by the lower appellate, court. Para 14 of the judgment of the lower appellate court also indicates that for only a name sake, D.W.1 proclaiming himself as a good person and willing to take back the wife, but his intention was a different one. Further more, D.W.1 had kept quiet after sending the notice and there is no record to show that he moved the court for restitution of conjugal rights. It is also curious to note that in the notice under Ex.B-1, a charge was levelled against P.W.1 alleging that she had removed about 25 sovereigns of jewels also when she left the matrimonial home. If really she had left the home with so much of valuables, D.W.I would not have kept quiet without taking immediate steps to recover the same or preferred police complaint or could have sent the relations to secure her as well as the jewels. The absence of any such thing on the part of D.W.1 only throws considerable doubt about his version. The charge levelled against P.W.1 that she had taken away about 25 sovereigns itself is a justifiable ground for living separately. The absence of any such thing on the part of D.W.1 only throws considerable doubt about his version. The charge levelled against P.W.1 that she had taken away about 25 sovereigns itself is a justifiable ground for living separately. The reasoning given by the lower appellate court is proper and correct and for valid and justifiable cause alone she is living separately and, as such, she is entitled to claim maintenance. 12. The lower appellate court awarded a sum of Rs.400 per month towards maintenance. P.Ws.l and 2 clearly stated that the family of D.W.1 own 50 acres of immovable property and also a coconut thope having thousands of yielding trees. Apart from that, their family also own a cinema theatre and in all these properties, D.W.1 had 1?5th interest. However, D.W.1 in the course of evidence denied the extent of the property; but admitted that his family own about 10 acres of land and similarly the theatre belongs to his mother. P.Ws.l and 2 stated that the family of the defendant would be getting substantial income from these properties and considering the extent of the property, possible income and the mode of living accustomed to by the parties, I am of the view that the award of Rs.400 per month appears to be a reasonable and proper one. On the other hand, D.W.1 has not filed any record to show that P.W.1 was earning substantial income and, as such, she would be in a position to maintain herself without getting any maintenance. Under the circumstance, I am of the view that the lower appellate court has correctly analysed the various contentions raised by the parties and there is proper appreciation of facts and law and hence, no interference is called for. 13. For the reasons stated above, the second appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.