CHIMATA NAGARATHNAMMA Vs. CHIMATA NATHANAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision filed by the wife, the twin questions that arise are :

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are : The respondent is the husband of the petitioner herein. Their marriage as per Hindu rites took place on 4-5-1961. After the marriage they lived amicably for some time. Two female children were born to them. Thereafter, differences arose. Both of them agreed to live separately. An agreement (Ex. P. 3) dated 12- 101971 was entered into between them. Under the agreement, the husband agreed to pay the wife Rs.50/- per month. The husband paid at that rate up-till 1985 and thereafter did not pay. Therefore, the wife filed M.C. No. 14/87 under S. 125, Cr.P.C. on the file of the Second Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Tenali, claiming maintenance of Rs.400/- per month. The husband filed a counter contending that he was paying the maintenance as per the agreement entered into between them and that if there is breach of the agreement the remedy open to the wife is to approach the civil Court by filing a suit and it is not open to her to resort to the proceedings under S. 125, Cr.P.C. It was also contended by the husband in the counter that both of them were living separately with consent and that the wife was unchaste. The wife was working as a coolie and the earnings derived therefrom were sufficient for her, that the daughters were married and that there are no grounds in the petition filed by her for grant of maintenance and it is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) On behalf of the wife, besides herself examined as P.W. 1, another witness was examined and Exs.P.1 to P. 6 marked. The respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and another as R.W.2. Ex. D 1 was marked. The trial Court, having considered the rival contentions of the parties, found that the agreement was entered into between the parties with consent and the agreement is genuine. It also found that the allegation of unchastity of the wife is not proved and the said allegation amounts to legal cruelty. The husband has not proved that he was paying Rs.50/- per month from 1985 onwards. It also found that the husband neglected the wife and that he was getting a salary of Rs. 2,025/- per month. Accordingly it awarded Rs.300/- per month.