( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for maintenance filed by his wife and children. For the sake of convenience, parties to these proceedings would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. ( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant who was having illicit intimacy with Venkataramani wife of Vittal Rao had by suppressing that fact, married the first plaintiff on 18-5-1973 at Srikakulam and begot plaintiffs 2 and 3 out of their wedlock on 10-6-1974 and 30-7-1977 respectively and had taken away the gold belonging to first plaintiff under the pretext of keeping it in Bank and did not return the same, and had neglected and refused to provide maintenance to them. Since defendant is earning Rs. 1,500/- per month as a Government employee, they are seeking past and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to the first plaintiff, and Rs. 200/- per month to each of plaintiffs 2 and 3. ( 3 ) THE case of the defendant, in brief, is that as he had married Venkataramani alias Jayashree on 22-12-1970 under the provisions of Special Marriage Act and begot a daughter and a son on 23-9-1972 and 19-11-1976 respectively, his marriage with the first plaintiff is not a valid marriage, and since first plaintiff developed illicit intimacy with his father and begot plaintiffs 2 and 3 through his father but not through him, plaintiffs are not entitled to any maintenance from him. ( 4 ) PLAINTIFFS filed a rejoinder denying the marriage between the defendant and Venkataramani alias Jayashree on 22-12-1970. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed 9 issues and one additional issue for trial. In support of their case plaintiffs besides examining the first plaintiff as PW. 1 examined four witnesses as PW. 2 to PW. 5 and marked Exs. A. 1 to A. 94. In support of his case defendant, besides examining himself as DW. 1 examined four witnesses as DW2 to DW5 and marked Exs. B. 1 to B. 8. On the basis of the evidence on record the trial Court held on Issue Nos. 1 examined four witnesses as PW. 2 to PW. 5 and marked Exs. A. 1 to A. 94. In support of his case defendant, besides examining himself as DW. 1 examined four witnesses as DW2 to DW5 and marked Exs. B. 1 to B. 8. On the basis of the evidence on record the trial Court held on Issue Nos. 1 to 4 i. e. , whether first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant, whether the defendant kept a mistress by name Venkataramani alias Jayashree, whether first plaintiff was having illicit intimacy with her father-in-law, and whether plaintiffs 2 and 3 are not the legitimate children of the defendant, in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. On issue No. 5, relating to the question of past maintenance, held that first plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 150/- per month and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to 100/- each per month from 4-4-1981 to 3-4-1984 as past maintenance. On issue No. 6, relating to the plaintiffs entitlement to future maintenance held that first plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 200/-per month and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to 150/- each per month till the second plaintiff attains majority and third plaintiff gets married. On issue No. 7 relating to the marriage expenses of the third plaintiff, directed the defendant to deposit rs. 15,000/- in the name of the third plaintiff towards her marriage expenses. On Issue no. 8, whether plaintiffs are entitled to a charge over the plaint A and B Schedule properties, held in favour of the plaintiffs. On additional issue i. e. , whether the first plaintiff is entitled to return of gold weighing four tolas 5 annas or its value, directed the defendant to return the gold ornaments of the first plaintiff or their value of Rs. 9,487-50 ps and created a charge for that amount on the plaint A and B schedule Properties, and on issue No. 9 relating to relief, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the decree passed against him defendant preferred the appeal and dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded to them, plaintiffs preferred cross-objections. ( 6 ) THE point for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim maintenance from the defendant, if so, at what rate and from when ? Aggrieved by the decree passed against him defendant preferred the appeal and dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded to them, plaintiffs preferred cross-objections. ( 6 ) THE point for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim maintenance from the defendant, if so, at what rate and from when ? ( 7 ) POINT : The main contention of the learned Counsel for the defendant is that the trial Court was in error in not taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the defendant, which clearly shows that he was married to Venkataramani alias jayashree, before his marriage with the first plaintiff, and so the marriage between the first plaintiff and defendant is but void and so first plaintiff is not entitled to claim maintenance from the defendant, and since the evidence of DWs. 4 and 5 establishes the illicit intimacy between the first plaintiff and the father of the defendant, and since the specific case of the defendant is that plaintiffs 2 and 3 were born to his father but not to him, the Court below was in error in awarding maintenance to plaintiffs 2 and 3. It is the contention in any event since the letters produced by both sides clearly show that the relations between first plaintiff and defendant were cordial, and since plaintiffs admittedly were residing in the house of the father of the defendant, the Court below was in error in awarding past maintenance to the plaintiffs. It is his contention that plaintiffs, in spite of the stay of execution of the decree, passed by this court got attached the salary of the defendant and has realized more than rs. 2,000/- from his salary and so plaintiffs are not entitled to more amount of maintenance than that is granted by trial court. The contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs is that since the trial Court gave cogent reasons for its conclusion that the case set up by the defendant about the marriage between him and Venkataramani alias Jayashree is not true, and since the evidence on record clearly establishes that plaintiffs were refused to be maintained by the defendant, and since the defendant, though retired is drawing pension at enhanced rate, plaintiffs are entitled to the maintenance as claimed by them in the suit. In reply, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that since there is no evidence regarding the enhanced salary and since the second plaintiff had attained majority, and since the father of the defendant had executed a Will bequeathing some property to the second plaintiff and since the defendant has to maintain Venkataramani alias Jayashree and children bom through her, plaintiffs, in any event, are not entitled to any enhanced maintenance. ( 8 ) THE sheet anchor of the case of the defendant is his alleged marriage with venkataramani alias Jayashree prior to his marriage with the first plaintiff. It is his specific case that his marriage with the first plaintiff is void. For that purpose he relied on Ex. B. 2 marriage certificate said to have been issued by the Marriage Officer, keonjahar. ( 9 ) PRIOR to the filing of the suit, there was exchange of registered notices between the parties. In the notice got issued by him defendant did not state anything about the marriage between him and Venkataramani alias Jayashree. For the first time he took a plea in his written statement that as he was married to Venkataramani alias jayashree on 22-12-1970, under the Special marriage Act and in view thereof the marriage that took place between him and the first plaintiff on 15-7-1973 is not a valid marriage. In the rejoinder filed by them plaintiffs clearly alleged that inasmuch as the defendant did not produce any document, along with his written statement, to show that there was a marriage between him and Venkataramani alias Jayashree, any document to be produced by him subsequently can only be or must be a document that is brought into existence for the purpose of the suit. Since the suit was filed in 1985, and since the written statement was also filed in 1985, as per Rule 8a of order VIII CPC, as it stood prior to 1999 and 2002 amendments, defendant who based his defence upon a document in his possession or power, should have produced that document i. e. , Ex. B. 2 or a copy thereof into Court along with his written statement. Ex. B. 2 or a copy thereof into Court along with his written statement. Ex. B. 2 was filed into Court only on 21-1-1998 along with a petition under order 13 Rule 2 CPC, on the ground that it could not be produced earlier as it was misplaced and was traced only three days prior to the filing of that petition. Though the trial Court condoned the delay and received ex. B-2 in evidence, its belated production tells its own tale in view of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs without regard. ( 10 ) EX. B. 2 shows that the marriage of the defendant with Jayashree bears No. 4262 dated 22-12-1970. The evidence of PW. 2, the father of the first plaintiff, shows that he made an application to the Marriage Officer of Keonjahar Village for issuance of a certified copy of the marriage certificate evidencing the marriage between the defendant and Jayashree, and that he received Ex. A. 46 reply that no marriage with Marriage No. 4262 dated 22-12-1970 was solemnized in his office. Though the person who wrote Ex. A. 46 was not examined to prove it, since DW. 2 produced it as a letter received in reply to the letter written by him it can be taken into consideration as a corroborative material to appreciate the evidence on record. ( 11 ) DEFENDANT who has to establish that there was a valid marriage between him and Venkataramani alias Jayashree under the Special Marriage Act, did not examine any witness to speak about that marriage. In Ex. B. 2 the name of the bridegroom is mentioned as Mangipudi Lakshminarayana, supervisor, PWD, age 26 years, Narada street, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District. The name of the bride is mentioned as jayashree age 25 years, c/o. Ram Rao gorti, Advocate, Berhampur. As per section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, parties to the intended marriage shall have to give notice in writing, in the form specified in the second schedule, to the marriage Officer of the District in which one of them is residing at least for a period of not less than thirty days immediately preceding the date on which such notice is given, which, as per Section 6 of the said Act, shall be open for inspection by any person desirous of inspection without fee. If neither of the parties to the intended marriage are the permanent residents within the local limits of the district in which the Office of the Marriage Officer is located, the Marriage Officer has to transmit a copy of the notice to the marriage Officer of the district within whose limits such party is permanently residing, and that Marriage Officer shall have to affix that notice in a conspicuous place in his office. Since the addresses of bride and bridegroom, mentioned in Ex. B. 2, do not disclose that they are permanent residents of the district Keonjahar, they should have produced some proof to show that one of them resided in a place in Keonjahar district for a period of one month prior to the date on which such notice was given. In fact in order to rebut Ex. A. 46 defendant should have taken step to cause production of the notices given by him and Jayasri alias Venkataramni under Section 5 of the special Marriage Act. No evidence regarding issuance of notice is adduced by the defendant. Section 11 of the Special Marriage act, 1954 contemplates the parties to the marriage signing a declaration in the presence of the Marriage Officer, in the presence of three witnesses, in the form specified in the Third Schedule, which reads as under :"the Third Schedule (See Section 11)Declaration to be made by the Bridegroom i, A. B. , hereby declare as follows :-1. I am at the present time unmarried (or a widower or a divorcee, as the case may be)2. I have completed. . . . . . . years of age. 3. I am not related to C. D. (the bride)within the degrees of prohibited relationship. 4. I am aware that, if any statement in this declaration is false, and if in making such statement I either know or believe it to be false or do not believe it to be true, I am liable to imprisonment and also to fine. (Sd.) A. B. (the Bridegroom)Declaration to be made by the Bride i. C. D. , hereby declare as follows :-1. I am at the present time unmarried (or a widow or a divorcee, as the case may be)2. I have completed. . . . . . . years of age. 3. I am not related to A. B (the bridegroom)within the degrees of prohibited relationship. 4. I am at the present time unmarried (or a widow or a divorcee, as the case may be)2. I have completed. . . . . . . years of age. 3. I am not related to A. B (the bridegroom)within the degrees of prohibited relationship. 4. I am aware that, if any statement in this declaration is false, and if in making such statement I either know or believe it to be false or do not believe it to be true, I am liable to imprisonment and also to fine. (Sd.) C. D. (the Bride)Signed in our presence by the above-named a. B. and C. D. So far as we are aware there is no lawful impediment to the marriage. (Sd.) GH. (Sd.) I. J. Three witnesses (Sd) K. L. Countersigned E. F. , marriage Officer. Dated the. . . . . . . day of. . . . . . . . . 19. . . . . . . . "though one of the three witnesses to the marriage of the defendant with venkataramani alias Jayashree is said to be an advocate, neither that advocate witness nor any of the other two witnesses is examined to swear to the fact that there in fact was a marriage between the defendant and Venkataramani alias jayashree. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial Court committed an error in not relying Ex. B. 2. ( 12 ) IN his written statement defendant alleged that he begot a daughter on 23-9-1972 and a son on 19-11-1976 through venkataramani alias Jayashree, without mentioning their names, and produced exs. B. 3 and B. 4 as their birth certificates. Ex. B3 is the birth certificate of M. Venkata kameshwari Aruna said to have been born on 26-9-1972 but the said birth was registered on 6-6-1975, long subsequent to the marriage between the first plaintiff and the defendant. In Ex. B. 3 the name of the father of the child is mentioned as Mangipudi Lakshminarayana but the name of the mother is not mentioned. The place of birth is given as Berhampur and permanent address of the father is given as B. V. Gopal Krishna Ranganibandho street, Berhampur. It is not the case of the defendant that he was living at Berhampur of Orissa State. He admittedly was an employee of the Government of A. P. by 1975. The evidence of PW. The place of birth is given as Berhampur and permanent address of the father is given as B. V. Gopal Krishna Ranganibandho street, Berhampur. It is not the case of the defendant that he was living at Berhampur of Orissa State. He admittedly was an employee of the Government of A. P. by 1975. The evidence of PW. 4 shows that the native place of Venkataramani is berhampur. Birth Certificate of Mangipudi shivavenkatesh i. e. , Ex. B. 4, shows that he was born on 19-11-1976 and that that birth was registered on 14-6-1977. The reason for the defendant not mentioning the names of the children in his written statement, though their names are very much known to him, is not explained. The reason for non-registration of the birth immediately after the birth also is not explained by the defendant. Since registration of birth took place subsequent to the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and defendant and since the reasons given for non-registration of the birth within the time stipulated is not known, inasmuch as the application for registration of the births are not summoned, ex. B. 3 and Ex. B. 4 are not of help in deciding this case. Even assuming that there was a marriage between the defendant and Venkataramani alias Jayashree on 22-12-1970, since the marriage between vittal Rao and Venkataramani was dissolved by a decree of divorce only on 30-9-1970 as per the decree in O. P. No. 71/ 1970, as alleged in the written statement of the defendant and as seen from Ex. A. 16, which shows that Venkataramani alias jayashree chose to remain ex parte in the said proceedings, and since the appeal against that decree lies to the High Court, the appeal time would expire only by the end of December, 1970. So the marriage that is said to have taken place between the defendant and Venkataramani alias jayashree on 22-12-1970, before the expiry of the appeal time, cannot be said to be a valid marriage in view of the unamended Section 15 of the Hindu marriage Act, which laid down that the divorced couple can marry only after expiry of the appeal time, and in view of the ratio in Tejinder Kaur v, Gurmit Singh, AIR 1988 SC 839 , and so the marriage between the defendant and first plaintiff in 1973, is a valid marriage. ( 13 ) THE averments in the written statement and the evidence on record show that the real affection and love of the defendant was towards Venkataramani alias jayashree, but not towards the first plaintiffs, because he, admittedly, spent most of his time with Venkataramani alias jayashree but not with the first plaintiff and so the various letters written by the defendant to the first plaintiff, with sweet words as if he has affection towards her and the children, is only a drama to pull wool over the eyes of the plaintiffs. So the contention of the learned Counsel for the defendant that defendant has affection towards plaintiff cannot be accepted. ( 14 ) DEFENDANT who imputed unchastity to the first plaintiff tried to establish the said fact through the evidence of DWs. 4 and 5. Their evidence cannot be accepted or believed because DW. 4 clearly admitted that she never made a complaint to anybody about alleged intimacy between her husband (father of defendant) and the first plaintiff during the lifetime of her husband. Probably because defendant was looking after the maintenance of DW. 4 she might have obliged him by giving evidence in his favour. The evidence of DW. 5 is but a hearsay evidence. She does not belong to the caste as of the parties and so question of her going into and observing what is happening inside the house between the father-in-law and the daughter-in-law is not possible. So the trial Court rightly did not believe her evidence. D. W. 1 who is interested in avoiding maintenance to plaintiffs, will naturally speak in support of his case. If really there was illicit intimacy between the first plaintiff and the father of the defendant, defendant would not have written letters showering affection on the plaintiffs. Defendant writing letters as if he has affection towards all the plaintiffs also belies the contention of the defendant that first plaintiff was having illicit intimacy with his father. Therefore the contention of the defendant that there was illicit intimacy between the 1st plaintiff and his father cannot be believed or accepted. ( 15 ) THE other contention of the defendant is that plaintiffs 2 and 3 in fact were born to his father but not to him. I held that the alleged illicit intimacy between the defendant and her father-in-law is not and cannot be true. ( 15 ) THE other contention of the defendant is that plaintiffs 2 and 3 in fact were born to his father but not to him. I held that the alleged illicit intimacy between the defendant and her father-in-law is not and cannot be true. Even otherwise also in view of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence act, since there is no evidence on record to show that there was or can be no access between first plaintiff and defendant, legitimacy of plaintiffs 2 and 3 cannot be doubted. Since unfounded allegation of unchastity is a ground for granting maintenance to a wife and since defendant admittedly was not providing maintenance to plaintiffs 2 and 3 the order of the trial Court directing the defendant to pay maintenance to all the plaintiffs needs no interference. ( 16 ) COMING to the quantum of maintenance Ex. A. 88 letter received from the Executive Engineer dated 29-1-1988 shows that the gross salary of the defendant was Rs. 1,690/- per month and that the deductions were about Rs. 300/- per month. So it is clear that the defendant was drawing about Rs. 1,390/- per month as take home salary. The trial Court awarded Rs. 150/-per month to the first plaintiff and Rs. 100/-each per month to the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as past maintenance which amounts to Rs. 350/-per month. The said amount cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. The contention that in view of Ex. A. 55, the trial Court was in error in awarding past maintenance cannot be accepted because as stated earlier all the affection etc. , showered in the letters written by the defendant to the first plaintiff was only an eye wash and not real. Since plaintiffs admittedly were not provided any maintenance when they were living at the house of the father of first plaintiff, they are entitled to past maintenance. ( 17 ) WITH regard to future maintenance, keeping in view Section 23 of the Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 since the father of the defendant admittedly executed a Will bequeathing Ac. 2 - 50 cents to the second plaintiff, the trial Court awarded Rs. 200/- per month to the first plaintiff and Rs. ( 17 ) WITH regard to future maintenance, keeping in view Section 23 of the Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 since the father of the defendant admittedly executed a Will bequeathing Ac. 2 - 50 cents to the second plaintiff, the trial Court awarded Rs. 200/- per month to the first plaintiff and Rs. 150/- per month to each of plaintiffs 2 and 3 till the second plaintiff attains majority and till the third plaintiff get married and directed the defendant to deposit rs. 15,000/- towards marriage expenses of the third plaintiff. In my considered view the amounts awarded by the trial Court are just and reasonable and so I do not wish to interfere with the quantum of future maintenance awarded by the trial Court. The point is answered accordingly. ( 18 ) IN view of my finding on the point for consideration, the appeal and the cross-objections are dismissed without costs.