MUTYALA SATYANARAYANAMURTHI Vs. MUTYALA JAGGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada in O. S. No. 142 of 1950. The defendant is the appellant in Appeal No. 460 of 1958 while the plaintiff is the appellant in Appeal No. 10 of 1959.

(2.) THE circumstances which have given rise to this litigation may be briefly stated : The plaintiff is the second wife of the defendant. She filed the suit, out of which these appeals have arisen, against her husband for recovery of future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/ - per year and past maintenance for nine years at the rate of Rs. 2,000/ - per year. There was also a claim for jewels which was valued at Rs. 5,000/ - and for an account of her pasupukunkuma, amount (pin money) entrusted to the defendant by the plaintiff's father at the time of her marriage. There were other incidental reliefs.

(3.) IN his written statement, the defendant denied the plaint averments and his liability with regard to any of the claims made by the plaintiff. He pleaded that the plaintiff had left his house without any justifiable cause. After the above suit was filed, the defendant instituted O. S. No. 22 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kakinada for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the suits were tried together by the consent of parties. The learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit and decreed the suit filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Aggrieved by the decrees, the plaintiff preferred A. S. Nos. 900 of 1952 and 855 of 1953 on the file of this Court. Those appeals were disposed of by a common judgment rendered by Mr. Justice Chandra Reddy (as he then, was) and Mr. Justice Kumarayya. That decision is reported in Jaggamma v. Satyanaryana Murthi,, (1957) 2 AWR 520 : ( : AIR 1958 AP 582). It was therein held that the story of ill -treatment advanced by the plaintiff was false and that she had left her husband under the circumstances mentioned by him, without any adequate and reasonable cause. But the learned Judges held that the plaintiff could no longer be compelled to live with her husband in view of the provisions of sub -s. 2(b) of Sec. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (78 of 1956). By reason of the fact that the defendant's first wife is alive, it was held that the plaintiff could claim relief under the Act, and that she would be entitled to maintenance from the date of the Act. As, however, the trial Court had not determined the quantum of maintenance, the plaintiff's suit was remanded to the trial Court for deciding the quantum of maintenance.