9.However, contrary to her assurance, the plaintiff had left him without any valid reason and that too on account of no fault on the part of the defendant. The defendant would also submit that the plaintiff is receiving rent from the building belonging to the defendant and she had also started giving him a lot of trouble by giving false complaint to the police that the defendant was attempting to grab off the properties. On the contrary, it was the plaintiff who was attempting to take control of all the properties of the defendant. Despite several requests, it was the plaintiff who was keeping away from her matrimonial home and the defendant was always ready and willing to live with the plaintiff and maintain the children. However, the plaintiff was hellbent on not rejoining the defendant. The defendant would submit that the plaintiff is only interested in his properties. The defendant was forced to execute a settlement deed in favour of his son regarding a portion of his property and at that time, the plaintiff had assured that she would not claim any rights in the property or for maintenance. Once again, by filing the above suit, she had gone back on her word. He would deny the fact that he was possessed a property worth self acquired and ancestral, to the tune of over a sum of Rs.47 lakhs and also denied that, he was earning a monthly income of Rs.30,000/-.
