VELIENENI GOPALA RAO Vs. VELINENI PITCHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, Counsel representing the appellant and Sri K. Harinath, Counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) The second appeal was admitted on 17-4-1997 and the following substantial question of law "Whether enhancement of maintenance is permissible solely on the ground of raise in cost of living in the absence of any proof of changed circumstances regarding the means of the defendant" had been framed.

(3.) Velineni Gopala Rao, 1st defendant in the suit O.S. No.450/87 on the file of Munsif Magistrate, Ponnur and the 1st respondent in the Appeal A.S. No.32/94 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, the husband, aggrieved by the reversing judgment and decree wherein some enhancement of maintenance had been granted to the plaintiff/appellant/wife Velineni Pitchamma, had preferred this second appeal. Submissions were made on the substantial question of law referred to supra in the light of the evidence available on record. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No.450/87 on the file of Munsif Magistrate, Ponnur, pleading as hereunder: The plaintiff is the wife of the 1st defendant and defendants 1 to 3 are brothers. The 4th defendant is the son of the 2nd defendant. All of them are Joint Hindu family members. 2nd defendant is the manager of the joint family. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant had a son bom to them on 28.2.1964 who died on 29.2.1964. The plaintiff succeeded the share of her deceased son in the joint family properties in A, B and C schedule and she was in joint possession and enjoyment. The 1st defendant was addicted to vices and developed illicit intimacy with other ladies and began to harass the plaintiff. The other defendants wanted to grab the share of the plaintiff. They instigated the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant mercilessly beat the plaintiff about 141/2 years ago and took away her gold ornaments. So she came to her parents house and was residing there and the mediations proved futile. The exchange of notices took place. The plaintiff filed O.S. No.39/79 on the file of Sub-Court, Bapatla claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.250/- per month with a charged over the plaint schedule properties. However, Rs.75/- was granted as future maintenance. The plaintiff preferred A.S. No.54/84 in Guntur District Court and the maintenance was modified to Rs.175/- per month from the date of the suit. The past maintenance and the charge over l/3rd share of the 1st defendant in the joint family properties was confirmed. It was stated that since 1978 there was enormous rise in the prices and the prices doubled. The defendant is getting an income of Rs.2,500/- per acre as against Rs. 1,000 - in 1978. So the plaintiff requires at least Rs.600/- per month and she is entitled for charge over the suit properties. So the suit is filed to alter the maintenance from Rs.175/- per month to Rs.600/- per month and to create the charge over the suit properties.