Judgment:
N. Kumar, J.
1. The appellants have preferred this second appeal against the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiff is to be paid maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mouth and her daughter is to be paid maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of the suit till she attains majority.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.
3. First plaintiff-Chandramma is the wife of Devaraju. Second plaintiff is the child born to her. Second defendant is the mother of first defendant. When the first defendant failed and neglected to maintain his wife and daughter, they were constrained to file the suit O.S. No, 81/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn) & JMFC, Channapatna, for a decree of maintenance and for creating a charge on the property which is standing in the name of the defendants which is a joint family property. In fact proceedings were initiated under Section 498A and 506 of the IPC and matters are pending before the competent Court Therefore, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit,
4. After service of notice defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement. They did not dispute the relationship. But. they denied their liability to pay maintenance to the plaintiff,
5. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed seven issues. Plaintiff was examined as PW1. She produced 10 documents which were marked as Exs. P1 to P10. First defendant was examined as DW1. He examined two witnesses as DWs 2 and 3 and produced two documents which were marked as Exs. Dl and D2.
6. The trial Court on appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record held that the plaintiffs have proved that the first defendant neglected and deserted them without providing maintenance to them. It also held that the first defendant is capable of paying maintenance to them. The trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have proved that the suit schedule properties are all ancestral properties belonging to the family, The partition pleaded by the defendant was also accepted. Thereafter it proceeded to grant a decree for maintenance in a sum of Rs. 500/- to the wife and Rs. 400/- to the daughter. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred a regular appeal,
7. The lower Appellate Court on re appreciation of the entire evidence on record and after formulating the points for consideration affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court, Aggrieved by these two concurrent findings, the defendants are in second appeal.
8. The teamed counsel for the appellants submitted that, in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below regarding payment of maintenance, in order to have peace in the house and for better management of the property, the appellants are willing to give to the plaintiffs their respective shares in the property and, therefore, he submits a case for admission is made out.
9. The first defendant being the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the minor child is legally bound to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter. They have no independent income. On the contrary, the material on record shows that the first defendant has neglected to maintain his wife and daughter. He has agricultural lands which he has inherited from his ancestors. In those circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the first defendant is liable to pay maintenance to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the said finding of the Courts below is based on legal evidence and no case for interference is made out. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal which merits admission. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal, it is open to the parties to sit across and resolve the dispute in whatever manner they feel it reasonable.