Judgment : Appeal filed against the Judgment and decree, dated 27.08.1999 made in O.S.No.153 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed by the lower court, namely, Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai in O.S.No.153/1998, dated 27.08.1999 preferred by the aggrieved defendant. .2. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the wife and the minor child seeking for past maintenance at Rs.1,000/-per month for the 1st plaintiff and at Rs.500/- per month for the 2nd plaintiff for three years and also to pay the future maintenance from the date of the plaint at the same rate to the plaintiffs and also to pay a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs towards the marriage expenses of the minor 2nd plaintiff and for recovery of B schedule jewels from the custody of the defendant and for costs. .3. The brief facts of the plaintiffs before the lower court are as follows: .The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant took place on 210. 1991 at Seerkazhi Taluk, Thiruvenkadu Village by following the Hindu Customs. After the marriage, the 1st plaintiff and the defendant lived at Coimbatore along with defendants parents. The defendant is working in a Government Office. The parents of the defendant and the defendant used to harass the 1st plaintiff stating that the things given to her in the marriage were not sufficient and demanded to get them from her parents. Out of their wedlock, the 2nd plaintiff was born to the 1st plaintiff on 28. 1992 at 1st plaintiffs parents house at Thiruvenkadu. The defendant did not go to Thirvenkadu to see his child and to participate in the birth ceremonies of his child. The parents of the 1st plaintiff have taken efforts to unite the plaintiffs and the defendant. But the parents of the defendant have refused for the same and the things given to the 1st plaintiff at the time of marriage is also only with the defendant. In the meantime, the defendant has filed a petition seeking divorce from the 1st plaintiff before the Family Court, Coimbatore. The defendant is earning Rs.5,000/-per month and apart from that, he is having a house at Coimbatore worth about Rs.4 Lakhs and lands at Kudavasal Taluk, Thirumeignanam Village. In the meantime, the defendant has filed a petition seeking divorce from the 1st plaintiff before the Family Court, Coimbatore. The defendant is earning Rs.5,000/-per month and apart from that, he is having a house at Coimbatore worth about Rs.4 Lakhs and lands at Kudavasal Taluk, Thirumeignanam Village. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month for the 1st plaintiff and Rs.500/-per month towards maintenance for the 2nd plaintiff. Further, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.3 Lakhs towards the marriage expenditure of the 2nd plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff is only educating the 2nd plaintiff in an English Medium School at Thiruvenkadu and the defendant has not at all cared to educate the 2nd plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed this suit seeking maintenance from the defendant. .4. The defence raised by the defendant before the lower court are as follows: The suit is not maintainable both in law and on facts. It is an admitted fact that the 1st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and the 2nd plaintiff is the offspring of their wedlock. After the marriage, both of them were living together at Coimbatore for about three months and during that period, the 1st plaintiff used to urge the defendant to set up a separate family and to get transfer to a place nearer to her place and demanded Rs.40,000/- as loan to discharge the debts of her father. When the defendant failed to fulfil her demands, she finally left the matrimonial home without the knowledge and consent of the defendant on 2. 1992 with the intention of deserting the defendant once for all. The repeated attempts made by the defendant to get her back to the matrimonial home by correspondence and mediation were all of no avail. Therefore, the defendant has left with no other option except to file a petition for divorce on the ground of desertion before the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, which was subsequently transferred to the Family Court, Coimbatore in H.M.O.P.No.260/1995, which is still pending. The 1st plaintiff was diligent in prosecuting the case and allowed the petition to go for ex-parte with the ulterior motive of dragging on the case endlessly and thereby to harass the defendant. The 1st plaintiff was diligent in prosecuting the case and allowed the petition to go for ex-parte with the ulterior motive of dragging on the case endlessly and thereby to harass the defendant. Further, the 1st plaintiff has filed this suit before the Family Court, Mayiladuthurai and thereafter, filed a petition before the High Court to transfer the Family Court Case in H.M.O.P.No.260/1995 to Mayiladuthurai to be tried along with this case. The same was dismissed with a direction to the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.750/- for each and every hearing for the plaintiff to get on with H.M.O.P.No.260/95 at Coimbatore itself. Even after that, the plaintiff is not willing to proceed with the case. The defendant is prepared to maintain and educate the 2nd plaintiff, if she is entrusted to his custody. The alleged demand of dowry and cruel treatment by the parents of the defendant are denied by the defendant. Further, the defendant is getting only a carry home salary of Rs.3750/- per month and he is having only a meagre share in the house property and he has to support his aged sick parents. As the 1st plaintiff had withdrawn herself from the matrimonial home on her own accord without any reasonable and just cause and unjustly denied the conjugal company and consortium, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the defendant and the claim for maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month for the 1st plaintiff and at Rs.500/-per month for the minor 2nd plaintiff is highly excessive. Therefore, the suit may be dismissed with costs. 5. The appellant herein is the defendant before the lower court. The first plaintiff is the wife of the defendant and the 2nd plaintiff is the minor daughter born to the 1st plaintiff and the defendant. The lower court had after considering the evidence adduced on either side come to a conclusion of decreeing the suit for past maintenance at Rs.500/-per month in favour of the 1st plaintiff and Rs.300/-per month in favour of the 2nd plaintiff for three years immediately before the suit towards past maintenance and directed the defendant to pay the future maintenance at the same rate and allowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards marriage expenditure of the minor 2nd plaintiff and further directed the defendant to deposit the same into court within three months time and also allowed costs. The claim for return of the jewels as detailed in Bschedule property was negatived by the lower court. While coming to the conclusion, the lower court had framed six issues as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the return of the properties described in B schedule? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim maintenance from the defendant? 3. If so, what is the quantum of maintenance, the plaintiffs are entitled? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to past maintenance form the defendant? 5. Whether the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs towards marriage expenses of the minor 2nd plaintiff? 6. To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled for? 7. Aggrieved by the decision of the lower court, the defendant had preferred the present appeal. However, the plaintiffs have not filed any cross appeal in respect of the decision reached for the return of B schedule property. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. On a careful perusal of the pleadings and evidence adduced by either parties before the lower court, the judgment of the lower court and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the following points are necessary for the disposal of the appeal: .1. Whether the past maintenance and future maintenance fixed at Rs.500/- per month in favour of the 1st plaintiff and rs.300/-per month in favour of the 2nd plaintiff are liable to .be set aside or modified? 2. Whether the award of Rs.50,000/-in favour of the minor 2nd plaintiff towards the marriage expenses directing the defendant to pay a sum is not correct? 3. Whether the appeal is liable to be allowed and to what relief the appellant is entitled for? 9. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties before the lower court are being used in this judgment. 10. Point No.1: The claim of the plaintiffs were three fold. 3. Whether the appeal is liable to be allowed and to what relief the appellant is entitled for? 9. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties before the lower court are being used in this judgment. 10. Point No.1: The claim of the plaintiffs were three fold. The plaintiffs were claiming the past maintenance at Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.500/-per month respectively against defendant, who is none other than the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd plaintiff; to claim future maintenance for the plaintiffs at the same rate on which they have claimed from the defendant; and for a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs towards the marriage expenses to be incurred in future for the marriage of the minor 2nd plaintiff. The claim for return of the jewels as described in B schedule was negatived by the lower court and no appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. The lower court had appreciated the claim for maintenance by accepting that the default was on the part of the defendant to maintain the plaintiffs. However the claim at Rs.1000/- per month for 1st plaintiff and the claim for Rs.500/-per month for the 2nd plaintiff were on the higher side and had permitted a sum of Rs.500/- for the 1st plaintiff and Rs.300/- for the 2nd plaintiff against the claims of maintenance. As regards the claim of marriage expenditure is concerned, the lower court had directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- only against the claim of Rs.3 Lakhs. .11. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit in his argument that the defendant was always ready and willing to live with the plaintiffs, but the 1st plaintiff was adamant by insisting to go for separate residence under the evil advice of her parents and she did not return after she had gone for the delivery of the child and the letters written by the defendant requesting her to come and live with him were of no avail. Therefore, he had to file a petition for divorce at Coimbatore Subordinate Court and it had been transferred to the Family Court, Coimbatore and therefore, there was no intention on the part of the plaintiffs to come and join the defendant and live with him in his marital residence. Therefore, he had to file a petition for divorce at Coimbatore Subordinate Court and it had been transferred to the Family Court, Coimbatore and therefore, there was no intention on the part of the plaintiffs to come and join the defendant and live with him in his marital residence. He would further submit that the first plaintiff had actively deserted the defendant and therefore, she was not entitled to either past or future maintenance. He would further submit that the evidence of D.W.1 would go a long way to show that he was ready to take the custody of the 2nd plaintiff and he had also filed proper proceedings before the court concerned for the custody of the child and therefore, it can be considered that the defendant was always willing to live a family life with the plaintiffs and it was the 1st plaintiff, who had not only deserted the defendant, but had refused the conjugal rights to him and therefore, he was not liable to pay the maintenance. He would further submit in his argument that the sister of the defendant was also married to the elder brother of the 1st plaintiff and he had deserted his sister and he was looking after his sister with her son along with his aged parents and his salary drawn at Rs.4,500/- per month was not at all sufficient to pay maintenance as ordered by the lower court. The marriage expenditure was also fixed at enormous height and therefore, the judgment and decree of the lower court has to be set aside. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit in his argument that the evidence of D.W.1 would go to show that he was not willing to live jointly with the plaintiffs. Naturally he had deserted the plaintiffs and he had not taken any steps to get back the 1st plaintiff with the 2nd plaintiff after she had gone for delivery of the child and the evidence spoken to by P.W.2 as to the failure of efforts taken by them was purely due to the unwillingness of the defendant and the defendant had no faith over his wife and he had gone to the extent of accusing the 1st plaintiff that the 2nd plaintiff was not born to him. But, however he had spoken false that he had applied for custody of the child and was ready and willing to join with the plaintiffs. He would further submit that the defendant was working as a Typist in a Government Office and was earning more than Rs.5,000/-per month and he could very well maintain his aged parents and at the same time to pay maintenance as prayed for by the plaintiffs, when he was found to be guilty of deserting the plaintiffs. He would also submit that the alleged story put forth by the defendant that he was maintaining his sister and her son are not relevant to the present case and the defendant is under the statutory liability to maintain his wife and child, as he was not willing to live jointly with them. Therefore, the maintenance amount which has been ordered by the lower court, even though very meagre sum in these days, may be confirmed and the appeal be dismissed. 13. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. .14. There is no dispute that the marriage in between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant had taken place and they lived peacefully for certain months and the 1st plaintiff got conceived during the said wedlock and during the seventh month of her pregnancy, Seemantham was conducted and the 1st plaintiff was taken to her parents house and the 2nd plaintiff was born to the 1st plaintiff and thereafter, she did not go over to the native place of the defendant nor joined with the defendant. According to the defendant, he has taken steps to bring the 1st plaintiff with the 2nd plaintiff after the delivery of the child at the house of the 1st plaintiffs parents by writing so many letters. Admittedly, he had not gone over to the place of the parents of the 1st plaintiff nor attempted to take her back home. He had admitted in his evidence that he had not sent any one for the purpose of bringing her back. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 would go to show that the efforts taken by the parents of the 1st plaintiff to join the plaintiffs with the defendant were of no avail, since the defendant had not accepted for any compromise in between them. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 would go to show that the efforts taken by the parents of the 1st plaintiff to join the plaintiffs with the defendant were of no avail, since the defendant had not accepted for any compromise in between them. The evidence of the defendant as D.W.1 would go to show that he had filed a petition for divorce immediately after his efforts taken through writing letters had failed. This would go to show that he had not taken any steps to send people for bringing the plaintiffs to his marital house nor taken any steps to join her by filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. He had straight away filed a petition for divorce by stating the reason that the 1st plaintiff had deserted him. Apart from that, he had spoken to the effect that he had applied for the custody of the 2nd plaintiff and therefore, he was not under the liability of paying maintenance to the 2nd plaintiff. He would also speak to the effect that he was ready to incur the expenditure of educating the 2nd plaintiff. However, in his cross-examination, he had spoken to the effect that the fidelity of the 1st plaintiff was not good and he suspected the paternity of the 2nd plaintiff. The said evidence of D.W.1 (defendant) would expose his attitude towards the 2nd plaintiff. Therefore, it can easily be ascertained that there cannot be any truth from the mouth of the defendant that he was willing to take care of the 2nd plaintiff and therefore, he has filed a petition for custody. The defendant had not taken any steps to bring the 1st plaintiff with 2nd plaintiff to his house. This itself would go to show that it was the defendant, who had avoided the company of the plaintiffs and was keeping away. Therefore, the evidence of D.W.1 to the effect that he was always willing to join the plaintiffs cannot be relied upon at any stretch of imagination. The alleged accusation against the 1st plaintiff that she had deserted the defendant was not at all true and reliable. Therefore, the falsity is found on the part of the defendant, which made the plaintiffs living separately from the company of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the claim for the maintenance. 15. The alleged accusation against the 1st plaintiff that she had deserted the defendant was not at all true and reliable. Therefore, the falsity is found on the part of the defendant, which made the plaintiffs living separately from the company of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the claim for the maintenance. 15. As regards the quantum of maintenance awarded by the lower court is concerned, the lower court had ordered for a sum of rs.500/-per month for the 1st plaintiff and Rs.300/- per month for the 2nd plaintiff both towards past maintenance and future maintenance. The said quantum of maintenance as granted by the lower court is very meagre sum considering the difference of price range in these days. During the time of filing of the suit in the year 1998, the said claim could be reasonable. Moreover, the plaintiffs have not agitated against the said findings and therefore, the said amount cannot be reorganised in this appeal. Therefore, the order passed by the lower court fixing the monthly maintenance at Rs.500/- p.m. for 1st plaintiff and Rs.300/-p.m. for 2nd plaintiff towards both past and future maintenance are confirmed. This point is answered accordingly. 16. Point No.2 : In so far as the claim of marriage expenditure for the minor 2nd plaintiff is concerned, it was claimed by the plaintiffs at Rs.3 Lakhs, but was ordered at Rs.50,000/- by the lower court. No doubt, the defendant as the father of the minor 2nd plaintiff is liable to pay and incur expenditure towards the marriage expenses of his daughter, but the claim of Rs.3 Lakhs was not accepted by the lower court and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was alone ordered. There was no evidence available to the effect that the said sum ordered by the lower court was not sufficient to meet such expenditure. Moreover, the said award of Rs.50,000/-was ordered in the consideration of expenditure incurred during the relevant period i.e. 1998. The said amount was also directed to be invested in a fixed deposit in order to earn interest. The plaintiffs did not file any cross appeal in this regard also and therefore, the said amount ordered by the lower court cannot be hiked as insufficient. In these circumstances, the order passed by the lower court with regard to the marriage expenditure is also confirmed. The point No.2 is also answered accordingly. .17. The plaintiffs did not file any cross appeal in this regard also and therefore, the said amount ordered by the lower court cannot be hiked as insufficient. In these circumstances, the order passed by the lower court with regard to the marriage expenditure is also confirmed. The point No.2 is also answered accordingly. .17. Point Nos.3 and 4 : In the aforesaid discussion, I have held that the quantum of .maintenance fixed by the lower court towards past and future and the marriage expenses fixed at Rs.50,000/- for the minor 2nd plaintiff are confirmed. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the lower court cannot also be disturbed or modified. I find no reason for interfering with the findings and the judgment and decree of the lower court. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs. 18. In the result, the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is also closed.