Judgment :- The plaintiff in O.S.No.857 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchengode in whose favour the maintenance was passed in the trial Court was reversed on the appeal before the First Appellate Court and on such dismissal of her claim in the suit, the second appeal was preferred. 2. The averments made in the plaint were as follows: On 7th Vaikasi 1970 the defendant married the plaintiff. The house of the plaintiff is at Mallasamudram Hamlet, Karungal Village. Both parties lived as husband and wife for six months at Periamanali Village. Thereafter there was cruelty on the part of the defendant. The defendant had illicit intimacy with one Jamuna of Kakkalai Village. Seven years ago, the defendant began to live with Jamuna. So the plaintiff was living with the defendant's parents. The defendant got son of six years old and daughter of three years old born through Jamuna. Due to the desertion made by the defendant, the plaintiff found it difficult to ehke her livelihood . As the defendant is employed as a driver in the Anna Transport Corporation , earning a monthly salary of Rs.1200/-,monthly maintenance of Rs.300/- was to be paid as maintenance. 3. The averments made in the written statement were as follows: It is false to contend that the defendant married plaintiff on 7th Vaikasi 1970 at Karungal Village. True it is that the plaintiff was related to the mother of the defendant. As she was elder than the defendant, the later could not accede to the request of his mother to marry the plaintiff. Thus, there was no marriage. Since the defendant's parents were elderly , they wanted to get the assistance of plaintiff and so the later was living with defendant's parents,after whose death also, the plaintiff refused to leave the house of the defendant. The defendant has not married any lady by name Jamuna. The salary of the defendant is only Rs.700/- per month. Hence the suit is to be dismissed. 4.On the above pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues: a) Whether there was a marriage between the defendant and the plaintiff? b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance as required? 5. The plaintiff and two other witnesses by name Pachamuthu and Thangavel were examined as P.Ws 1 to 3. The defendant was examined as D.W.1. 4.On the above pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues: a) Whether there was a marriage between the defendant and the plaintiff? b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance as required? 5. The plaintiff and two other witnesses by name Pachamuthu and Thangavel were examined as P.Ws 1 to 3. The defendant was examined as D.W.1. A copy of notice of Plaintiff's counsel and defendant's acknowledgement there of were marked as Exs A1 and A2. The Record Sheet showing the date of birth of the defendant was marked as Ex B1. 6. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Judge has decreed the suit for maintenance of Rs.200/- per month. The first Appellate Court has reversed and dismissed the suit against which this appeal had arisen. 7. During the course of admission of this second appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed: " Whether the lower appellate Court has considered the entire evidence on record and applied the correct principles of law?" 8. This is a suit for maintenance. As the trial Court has observed that the parties belong to a socially, educationally and economically Backward Class, they are Adi Dravidars. True, it is that so far as the provision of law is concerned , all are equal before law and therefore, a total exception or different treatment is undesirable and unwarranted. In the application of provision of statute also there should necessarily be uniformity and the law should be made to prevail over. But without transcending any provision of the statute the degree of proof required in a particular peculiar circumstances, while dealing with common law namely, the degree of proof required and the assessment of the probative value of evidence may vary. To render equality of status and opportunity enshrined in the Constitution, we have to set a balancing act in dealing with unequals, which alone would secure Justice, social and economic. In a heterogenous society consisting of different types of classes with different customs, beliefs and styles of life, a stereotype way of weighing and evaluation of evidence may not be helpful in rendering substantial justice. The Judgment of the trial Court on an entire reading of the same, would leave an impression that it was made only with an approach of the issue in an appreciable and acceptable manner. 9. The Judgment of the trial Court on an entire reading of the same, would leave an impression that it was made only with an approach of the issue in an appreciable and acceptable manner. 9. The first Appellate Court, was of coursenot at wrong in reiterating Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 under which a Hindu lady was entitled to maintenance. The plaintiff also claims under that provision. The right of a wife for maintenance is an incident of the status or estate of matrimony and a Hindu is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife. The obligation to maintain the wife is personal in character and arises from the very existence of the relation between the parties. A wife though normally bound to remain under the roof and protection of the husband, could claim separate residence and maintenance, if she established that by reason of his misconduct or by his refusal to maintain her in his own place of residence, she was compelled to live apart from him and claim maintenance. It has been said more than once that among the description of desertion one which has always appealed to Courts trying matrimonial causes is that "desertion" is a "withdrawal not from a place, but from a state of things". The clause aims at giving the meaning of desertion as abandonment of the wife by the husband without reasonable cause or wilful neglect of the wife by the husband. 10.All these proposition of law has been very much followed by the first Appellate Judge. While appreciating and evaluating the oral evidence that is available in this case, the first Appellate Judge disbelieved the same. He had approached the evidence with an yard stick applicable among the affluent people . We have already mentioned that in the application of law no variance can be shown, but in evaluating the evidence,the degree of proof may vary due the circumstances and also in which the different kinds of people are living. It is thus, in the approach of evaluation of the evidence both the Courts below distinguished between themselves. We have already mentioned that in the application of law no variance can be shown, but in evaluating the evidence,the degree of proof may vary due the circumstances and also in which the different kinds of people are living. It is thus, in the approach of evaluation of the evidence both the Courts below distinguished between themselves. While , the first Appellate Judge, expected a strict approach of degree of proof,what the trial Judge mentioned at the end of paragraph 8 of his Judgment is that since the parties belong to a downtrodden community expectance of printing of wedding cards and other degree of proof of Hindu marriage like saptapathi etc may not very much arise in order to easily resolve the matter and therefore before analysing this case, one must accept that the factors of proof of marriage would only be drawn from the circumstances available and no strict proof of the same would be readily before us. 11. In this case, Ex B1 was produced to prove the age of the defendant, in order to show that the plaintiff happened to be elder than the defendant. But there is no such evidence to show the age of defendant to compare with that of plaintiff. Simply by production of Ex B1, we can't say that the plaintiff was elder than the defendant. Even assuming that she was one or two year elder than the defendant, P.W.2 who was said to have conducted the marriage deposed that according to the customs in the community it is not of an issue even if the wife was one or two years elder than the husband. 12. There was no child born in the said wed lock of plaintiff with the defendant. Had there been a child, it would throw some light as to when he or she was born, from which we may be able to get one of the decisions making factors. That chance is also not available in this case. 13. The plaintiff is admittedly a relation of the defendant's parents, who even according to the defendant were insisting upon the latter to get the plaintiff married. That chance is also not available in this case. 13. The plaintiff is admittedly a relation of the defendant's parents, who even according to the defendant were insisting upon the latter to get the plaintiff married. This coupled with the fact that the plaintiff was all along living in the abode of the defendant, more particularly even after the death of the parents of the defendant is a strong piece of circumstances, which would clinchingly prove the long co-habitation of the parties to the suit. The defendant attempted to explain that the plaintiff was brought to his house by his parents, only to render help and be supportive to them. This becomes unbelievable, when it is admitted by the defendant that even after the death of his parents she continued to reside in his house. It is in this context, we have to see the evidence of P.W.2 that it was not as if the plaintiff was brought by the parents of the defendant in order to help them,but it was only the bondage of marriage that brought her there. 14.As seen under Ex B1 the defendant was shown to have been born on 3.1.1950. Therefore during the filing of the suit, he was 30 years old. He emphatically refused that he had any connection with Jamuna. He has specifically denied the allegation that he married Jamuna. It is something not normal that the defendant was living as a bachelor till the age of 35 and for what reason is also not made known. The said Jamuna was neither procured nor examined. The circumstances which were mentioned earlier probabilities, that it is only with the matrimonial status that the plaintiff happened to live in the house of defendant. 15.The first Appellate Court had a doubt in mind as to whether the plaintiff who alleged that she was deserted 14 years back could only file the suit after such long interval. True, it is that her allegation about the date of marriage was 7th Vaikasi 1970. The suit was filed in December 1984. But the evidence that she was all along living in the house of the defendant along with the later's parents was omitted to be seen. 16. Only when the cloud of cruelty and desertion arose, the plaintiff would be put to seek the remedy. It is in that way suit was filed after a long interval. But the evidence that she was all along living in the house of the defendant along with the later's parents was omitted to be seen. 16. Only when the cloud of cruelty and desertion arose, the plaintiff would be put to seek the remedy. It is in that way suit was filed after a long interval. Again, there may be difference in the exact date and month of the marriage, as it was not customary in the family of the plaintiff to print wedding cards and to get the marriage registered. Further in cases of maintenance, it is just enough to see as to whether at all there was a marriage. As no question of limitation is involved, we are not very much concerned with the date and month of the marriage. It is enough in cases of maintenance to have proved the marriage. In this case, P.Ws 2 and 3 had no motive to grind anything against the defendant. P.W.2 is a person who have conducted the marriage. P.W.3 is one who had attended the said marriage. It is usual for husband to evade from the clutches of maintenance simply denying the marriage. In this case, a poor lady of a community which is not affluent in either recording the marriage or procuring the evidence thereof could only examine the witness orally and cite circumstances in and by which we have to see whether a positive case of marriage is available. The circumstances narrated above, make only to think that there was a marriage between the parties and as the defendant deserted the plaintiff, the later is entitled to get maintenance. 17. The defendant was employed as driver in the Anna Transport Corporation. Even according to his admission what he was getting as monthly salary was Rs.700/- out of which awarding Rs.200/- per month as alimony is not excessive. 18. In the result, this second appeal is allowed, setting aside the Decree and Judgment of the first Appellate Court and confirming that of the trial Court. No costs.