Judgment :- This second appeal arises out of the concurrent findings of Courts below decreeing plaintiffs suit for maintenance and awarding maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the plaintiffs and Rs.500/- per year towards clothing, medical and other expenses from the date of the plaint. Unsuccessful defendant/husband is the appellant. 2. First plaintiff and defendant married in 1989 and first plaintiff was given 25 sovereign of gold jewels and other Seervarisai articles. Out of wedlock, second plaintiff Priyadharshini was born. Spouses were living happily till 1997. From the year 1998, there was misunderstanding between first plaintiff and defendant. According to first plaintiff, defendant developed bad habits of consuming liquor, having illicit intimacy with another woman by name Chitra and treating first plaintiff cruelly and demanding dowry. For the misappropriation committed by the defendant in the police department, first plaintiffs father had to pay Rs.1,00,000/-. Case of the plaintiffs is that defendant made an attempt to set fire on the first plaintiff and therefore, first plaintiff left matrimonial home on 25.12.1997. After issuing Ex.A2 legal notice, plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.15 of 1999 claiming maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the first plaintiff and Rs.500/- to the second plaintiff and also annual expenses. 3. Admitting marriage and denying other allegations, defendant filed written statement contending that first plaintiff was non-co-operative with her in-laws. Defendant averred that as per ill advise of her parents, first plaintiff ill-treated the defendant. Defendant has alleged that first plaintiff had contacts with her uncles son and whenever defendant cherished first plaintiff, she used filthy language against the defendant. Defendant is working as Head Constable in the Police Department. Defendant further averred that in the month of March 1998, when he had to stay for ten days in his office, first plaintiff has left the matrimonial house and she has taken away all household articles and also Rs.25,500/- and went to her native village Rettakurichi. Defendant has lodged a complaint against his wife, on the basis of which, a case was registered in Crime No.374 of 1998. First plaintiff had also kidnapped the daughter from the school without knowledge of the defendant and first plaintiff, who is living separately on her own, is not entitled to claim any maintenance. Defendant has lodged a complaint against his wife, on the basis of which, a case was registered in Crime No.374 of 1998. First plaintiff had also kidnapped the daughter from the school without knowledge of the defendant and first plaintiff, who is living separately on her own, is not entitled to claim any maintenance. Defendant alleged that he has purchased two plots in the name of the first plaintiff worth about Rs.2,00,000/-and only with a view to harass the defendant, the present suit has been filed. 4. Based on the above pleadings, four issues were framed in the trial Court. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and her daughter Priyadharshini was examined as P.W.2 and first plaintiffs father and brother were examined as P.Ws.4 and 5 respectively and plaintiff has examined P.W.3. Exs.A1 to A20 were marked on the plaintiffs side. Defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and D.Ws.2 to 5 were examined on defendants side. Exs.B1 to B20 were marked on the defendants side. Enquiry file of the defendant was marked as Ex.X1. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that defendant has harassed first plaintiff, which compelled the first plaintiff to leave the matrimonial house. Trial Court further held that defendant is bound to maintain his wife and daughter and without any reason, the defendant left them in the lurch. Holding that defendant is under obligation to maintain the plaintiffs, trial Court decreed the suit directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/-per month towards past maintenance for one year to the plaintiffs and Rs.15,500/- per year to the first plaintiff and Rs.23,900/- per year to the second plaintiff till her marriage from the date of the plaint. 6. Being aggrieved with awarding of maintenance, defendant filed A.S.No.55 of 2005 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Virudhachalam. Reiterating the findings of the trial Court, lower appellate Court held that first plaintiff was treated cruelly by the defendant and due to differences, first plaintiff was compelled to leave the matrimonial house. Referring to the evidence of P.W.2, lower appellate Court held that P.W.2 was kept with one Chitra with whom defendant was living and the said Chitra has treated P.W.2 cruelly. Referring to the evidence of P.W.2, lower appellate Court held that P.W.2 was kept with one Chitra with whom defendant was living and the said Chitra has treated P.W.2 cruelly. Observing that there is no evidence to show that first plaintiff has means to maintain herself, lower appellate Court ordered maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the plaintiffs and Rs.500/- per year to each of the plaintiffs and Rs.18,000/-towards past arrears of maintenance. 7. Challenging concurrent findings of Courts below, unsuccessful defendant has filed this Second Appeal. With the consent of learned counsel for both the appellant and the respondents, at the stage of notice of admission, Second Appeal itself was taken up for final hearing. Arguments were advanced on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Is not the claim for maintenance by the respondents/plaintiffs being used as weapon of assassin to harass and humiliate the appellant/defendant instead of being used as a shield against law. 2. Whether the judgment of the lower Court is vitiated by its failure to consider the evidence on record and apply the correct principle of law." 8. Learned counsel for appellant Mr.V.Girish Kumar contended that Courts below ought not to have granted maintenance and Courts below have not kept in view that defendant had purchased two plots in the name of the first plaintiff. It was further contended that first plaintiff has sufficient means to maintain herself and while so, the award of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the plaintiffs is on the higher side. 9. Taking me through evidence and judgments of Courts below, learned senior counsel for respondents/plaintiffs Mrs.Hema Sampath submitted that absolutely no evidence was adduced to show that first plaintiff owns properties. Learned senior counsel would further submit that in any event the quantum of maintenance to be awarded is to be befitting to the status of the parties and when the defendant is working as Head Constable in the police department, the maintenance amount awarded must be befitting to the status of the parties. It was further submitted that the lower appellate Court awarded only meagre amount of Rs.1,000/-per month to each of the plaintiffs and the quantum of maintenance cannot be interfered with. 10. The factum of marriage between first plaintiff and defendant is not denied. It was further submitted that the lower appellate Court awarded only meagre amount of Rs.1,000/-per month to each of the plaintiffs and the quantum of maintenance cannot be interfered with. 10. The factum of marriage between first plaintiff and defendant is not denied. Defendant has filed H.M.O.P.No.7 of 1999 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Virudhachalam, wherein the Court has granted decree of divorce. It was challenged in C.M.A.No.4 of 2005. Decree of divorce was modified by lower appellate Court as that of judicial separation. 11. Spouses were living happily together till 1997. From 1998 onwards, misunderstanding arose between first plaintiff and defendant. First plaintiff has alleged that defendants character was bad and he was in the habit of drinking liquor and having illicit intimacy with one Chitra and other woman and defendant has ill-treated her, whereas defendant has alleged that first plaintiff had contacts with her uncles son and that he had to look after his parents and brothers family. Regarding allegations and counter allegations assailing character of each other, the matrimonial Court has recorded its findings, merits of which need not be gone into in this proceedings. Suffice it to note that there was misunderstanding between first plaintiff and defendant, which compelled the first plaintiff to leave the matrimonial house. 12. As held by Courts below, P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 have consistently spoken about the cruelty meted out by the first plaintiff and that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house and take shelter in her parents house. Defendant has made false allegations of illicit contacts of first plaintiff with her uncles son. Both Courts below rejected that defence plea attacking first plaintiffs character. 13. It is pertinent to note that defendant has gone to the extent of even denying the paternity of second plaintiff (P.W.2). Referring to Exs.A12 to A14, Exs.A17 and A18, hostel receipts and Ex.A19 identity card of P.W.2 Priyadharshini, Courts below rejected the defence plea of denying paternity of P.W.2. Under Clause (b) of Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, when the husband has treated his wife cruelly making bald allegations, the wife is entitled to claim right of separate residence and maintenance. What amounts to cruelty under this provision would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. Under Clause (b) of Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, when the husband has treated his wife cruelly making bald allegations, the wife is entitled to claim right of separate residence and maintenance. What amounts to cruelty under this provision would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. When the defendant has gone to the extent of denying the paternity of P.W.2, making unfounded allegations of illicit contacts of wife, it would certainly amount to cruelty justifying the wifes taking separate residence. Upon analysis of oral and documentary evidence, Courts below were right in holding that due to compelling circumstances, first plaintiff has taken separate residence and defendant is under statutory obligation to maintain the plaintiffs. 14. Defendant has raised a plea that first plaintiff has taken cash of Rs.25,500/-from out of the mortgage amount collected. Defendant has also contended that he had purchased two plots in the name of his wife. Under Ex.B9 sale deed, property was purchased by the first plaintiff. Absolutely, no evidence was adduced to show that the defendant has paid the sale consideration amount. In fact, it was brought out in evidence that when there was a departmental proceedings against the defendant, only plaintiffs father has paid Rs.1,00,000/-, which was ordered to be recovered from the defendant towards misappropriation. While so, it is quite improbable that the defendant would have paid the sale consideration for purchase of house plots in the name of the first plaintiff. No evidence was adduced to show that first plaintiff has means to sustain herself. 15. Quantum of maintenance will have to be fixed by taking a balance view of various factors. Court has to bear in mind the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the plaintiffs, income of the defendant and the number of persons whom husband has to maintain. It is important to ensure that the maintenance amount is sufficient to enable the wife and daughter to live in reasonable comforts. Admittedly, defendant is working as Head Constable in Police Department and is stated to be earning more than Rs.7,000/- per month apart from daily batta. While so, in my considered view, the quantum of maintenance fixed by lower appellate Court at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per month to each of the plaintiffs is very meagre and cannot be said to be exorbitant warranting inference by this Court. 16. While so, in my considered view, the quantum of maintenance fixed by lower appellate Court at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per month to each of the plaintiffs is very meagre and cannot be said to be exorbitant warranting inference by this Court. 16. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, Courts below rightly ordered maintenance amount payable to the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff till her marriage. Amount of maintenance payable to the plaintiffs is stated to be Rs.1,37,500/-+ Rs.1,37,500/- + past arrears of Rs.18,000/- totalling to Rs.2,93,000/-. It is stated that pursuant to the order dated 10.08.2007, the appellant/defendant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards arrears of maintenance. 17. In the result, judgment in A.S.No.55 of 2005 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam dated 14.11.2005 is confirmed and Second Appeal is dismissed with costs throughout. Appellant/defendant is directed to pay balance arrears amount of maintenance of Rs.1,93,000/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Appellant/defendant is further directed to pay monthly maintenance to the plaintiffs on or before 10th of every succeeding English calendar month commencing from January 2010. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed.