SIRIGINA VENKATA RAMA RAO Vs. SIRIGINA SUBBAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts :- Both the appellants-defendants and respondent- plaintiff in O.S.No.161/83 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tanuku, challenged the decree and Judgment of the trial Court by way of a regular appeal and cross-objections, the appellants-defendants questioning the granting of very enhanced maintenance and the respondent-plaintiff questioning that the relief as prayed for should have been granted instead of granting the relief only in part. This is the claim of an old lady praying for enhancement of maintenance in view of the altered and changed circumstances and as already referred to supra, the relief was granted in part and aggrieved by the same, both parties are questioning the said Decree and Judgment on several grounds by way of appeal and cross-objections respectively (for the purpose of convenience the parties would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the original suit).

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the suit aforesaid for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- towards enhanced maintenance from January, 1983 being the value of 100 bags of paddy at Rs.100/- per bag and for future enhanced maintenance at 100 bags per year in addition to the maintenance of Rs.190/- per year already granted and to create a charge over the plaint 'A' schedule property. The learned Judge on appreciation of evidence decreed the suit in part for Rs.7,900/- towards maintenance for January, 1983 and future maintenance at Rs.7,900/- and the rest of the suit claim is dismissed without costs and charge over the schedule property was created for recovery of enhanced maintenance. Hence, the appeal and cross-objections.

(3.) Contentions of Sri Kodandaram:- Sri Kodandaram, the learned Counsel representing the appellants-certain of the defendants made the following submissions:- The learned Counsel maintained that the trial Court had not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence properly and had erred in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.190/- to Rs.7,900/- per year without any acceptable material in this regard. The learned Counsel also maintained that even otherwise the plaintiff is able to maintain herself and in the light of the same, on the ground of altered and changed circumstances, granting enhanced maintenance cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the prior Decree in O.S.No.348/1945 is a compromise decree and inasmuch as the said decree was made with the consent of the parties, the plaintiff is barred from maintaining the present suit on the ground of altered or charged circumstances. The learned Counsel while elaborating his submissions had taken this Court through the terms and conditions of the compromise decree and would maintain that in the light of the same, the decree cannot be sustained. However, the learned Counsel would maintain that even otherwise the enhanced maintenance granted is on higher side and in view of the conditional order made by this Court, the quantum can be restricted to only Rs.6,000/- per annum at the best and not beyond thereto. Reliance also was placed on certain decisions.