Decided on November 18,1963

Sankaran Namboodiri Appellant
Parvathi Antharjanam Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



- (1.)This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 3.First plaintiff is the wife of the third defendant and the second plaintiff is their son.The suit was for maintenance and it has been decreed at the rate of Rs.20/ - for the first plaintiff and Rs.10/ - for the second plaintiff.The first point urged in this appeal by counsel for the appellant is that the rate of maintenance is high.A commissioner was deputed to ascertain the income from the properties of the illom which admittedly consists of six members and the income has been fixed at Rs.1,317 -11 -0.This works out on an average to Rs.219.50 per member.The first plaintiff has now been awarded Rs.20/ - per mensem by the court below and the second plaintiff Rs.10/ - per mensem.At Rs.20/ - per mensem the first plaintiff gets more than her share of the income.This is unwarranted and counsel for the appellant is well founded in his submission that when the claim is for maintenance the entire share of the income cannot be distributed.The decision relied on by him, Govinda Marar v.Krishna Marar (XII Cochin Law Reports 142) is apposite.I think,therefore,that a reduction of Rs.5/ - from the amount fixed by the court below as maintenance due to the first plaintiff should be made and I direct accordingly.In other words,the first plaintiff would be entitled only to a maintenance of Rs.15/ - per mensem.Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 brought to my notice the decision of the Madras High Court in Ammalu Kutti Amma v.Ramunni Menon, 1934 AIR(Mad) 509 and contended that it is not an invariable rule that a minor can be given only half the amount fixed for the major.This is so.The amount to be awarded must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Mainly the needs of the person,and necessarily the income of the illom,are the two main considerations that should determine the question.At the time of the suit in 1958 the second plaintiff was 11 years old.The second plaintiff will have to be educated.Considering all the circumstances,I think the maintenance awarded to the second plaintiff must be raised to Rs.12/ -.
(2.)Counsel for the appellant then contended that the finding that the properties said to be acquired by the second defendant in his name are illom properties is not sustainable.I find that the finding if based on material and there is no reason to upset that finding.
(3.)There is a memorandum of cross objections filed by respondents 1 and 2 and this relates to the claim made by the 1st plaintiff in the court below for half of the sthridhanam amount.The claim as put forward in the plaint was for a sum of Rs.600/ - said to be half of the stridhanam amount paid.This has been negatived by the court below and this is what the court below has said: The first plaintiff claims Rs.600/ - as the half share of the streedhanam duo to her.But she says that she has no direct knowledge about the payment of streedhanam.Moreover,the amount paid at the time of marriage is only varadakshina and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any part of the same.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.