PAMJULA VENKATRAMAYYA Vs. PAMJULA MAHALAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent and her daughter instituted the suit for maintenance. It was alleged that the respondent married the appellant some thirty years before when she was ten years old. After attaining puberty she joined her husband. The 2nd plaintiff was born to them. The wife alleged that the husband was living with one Vadde woman by name Kami and was having illicit intimacy with her. Later on he brought her into the same house where the wife and her daughter were staying. It was also stated that the husband was ill-treating the wife and subsequently abandoned the plaintiffs. The wife therefore had to earn her livelihood and make arrangements of the 2nd plaintiffs marriage. Unfortunately her (2nd plaintiffs) husband died and as there was nobody to look after her in her husbands house, she had to come back and stay with her mother. It is on these grounds maintenance for both was claimed.

(2.) The defence set up by the husband was that he never illtreated the wife, nor abandoned her. He was not having any illicit intimacy with any woman, nor brought any woman to his house. He alleged that the Ist plaintiff, the wife, was lending an adulterous life, she left her husband and lived with one P. Laxmiah for three years. Later on she got into intimacy with another person, Jagu Suhbaramayya and lived with him for about five years and later on lived with Chekuru Kotayya for about ten years. She left him also and now is living as the concubine of Beludari Nagayya. It was therefore, contended that she is not entitled to any maintenance. It was also alleged that the defendant was not liable for maintaining his widowed daughter as she can got the maintenance from her husbands relatives.

(3.) Upon these pleadings the trial Court framed appropriate issues and after recording the evidence of the parties found all the allegations made in the plaint by the plaintiffs as not proved. It was also found that the allegation made by the husband that the wife was leading an adulterous life was satisfactorily proved. The trial Court did not hold responsible the defendant for the maintenance of his widowed daughter. Consequently the suit was dismissed.