GUNTUPALI RAMA SUBBAIAH Vs. GUNTUPALLI RAJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, In O.S. No. 191 of 1971 filed by the ist respondent, the wife of the appellant, In Forma Pauperis for maintenance and O P No.153 of 1963 filed by the appellant against the 1st respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. The suit filed by the wife was decreed and the petition filed by the husband was dismissed.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of these two appeals are these; The 1st respondent was married to theappellant about 11 years prior to herfifing an application under Or. 33, Rule 1-C.P.C. for permission to sue In Forma Pauperis. Very soon after the marriage, it is the case of the respondent that her husband started Ill-treating her having developed illicit intimacy with his brother's wife. She hoped that some change may come in her husband. She bore the ill-treatment meted out to her with patience; but as the husband had subjected her to ill-treatment beyond her capacity to bear, she went to live with her parents. Her husband then gave a notice and filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that she had, without reasonable cause, deserted him Her defence In the petition is the same as what she averred in her plaint In the suit. According to her, she required a minimum of Rs. 5O/- per- mensem for food and clothing in addition to provision for separate residence. She also claimed return of the dowry of Rs. 2,000/- and other articles of the value of Rs. 850/- given to her husband by her father at the time of the marriage on the ground of custom and usage prevailing in the Karri ma caste to which they belong. In the written state- Prinment filed by the appellant, he denied having received any dowry or any articles as presentation at the time of his marriage. He also disputed her claim for maintenance on tha ground that he was always ready and willing to maintain her and had not neglected or deserted her.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge framed appropriate issues and found that the appellant is not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights on account of his illicit intimacy with hfs brother's wife. For the same reasons, he allowed her claim for maintenance at the rate of Rs.30/- per mensem from the date of the suit and past maintenance at the same rate for one year and recovery of Rs.2,000/-pald towards dowry.