G CHILAKAMMA Vs. G SATTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. W.V.S. Rajeshwari representing Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shaik Anwar Pasha, the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The short question which was raised and argued at length in the Second Appeal is in relation of the reduction of quantum of maintenance by the appellate Court without any basis. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.109 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Medchal, R.R. District and the respondent is the defendant. The parties are wife and husband. The suit O.S.No.109 of 1988 was decreed directing the defendant to pay maintenance of Rs.800.00 per month to the plaintiff from the date of the judgment and pay the costs of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant/husband filed A.S.No.51 of 1992 and the plaintiff/wife filed A.S.No.63 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Judge, R.R. District at Saroornagar, and the appellate Court had modified the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.109 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Medchal, awarding maintenance at Rs.700/- p.m. which is approximately 1/3rd of his salary per month and this should be made effective from the date of the impugned judgment and decree and the maintenance from the date of plaint till the impugned judgment and decree which was refused by the trial Court, had been granted by the appellate Court in the appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.63 of 1992 and the same was fixed as only at Rs.500.00 p.m. during the pendency of the suit. The appellant/wife though satisfied with the granting of the relief, aggrieved by the reduction of the quantum of maintenance from Rs.800.00 to Rs.700.00 and granting only Rs.500/- during the pendency of the suit, had preferred the present second appeal.

(3.) Smt. Rajeswhari, the learned counsel for the appellant had drawn my attention to Sections 18 and 23(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and had submitted that the principles and the guidelines governing the granting of maintenance had not been properly appreciated by the appellate Court and the appellate Court is not justified in reducing the quantum of maintenance from Rs.800.00 to Rs.700.00 and also the appellate Court erred in granting only Rs.500.00 during the pendency of the suit. The learned counsel also had taken me through the findings which had been recorded by the Court of first instance and also by the appellate Court in this regard. However, the learned counsel submitted that the appellate Court was well justified in granting maintenance during the pendency of the suit which was not granted by the Court of first instance. Strong reliance was placed on Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Smt. Raj Kumar, Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District judge and K. Sivakumari v. K. Sambasiva Rao.