MADAMANCHI GOVINDAYYA Vs. MADAMANCHI CHIMPIRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal and the cross-objections arise out of a Suit O.S. No. 2 of 1959 filed by a Hindu wife against her husband and step-son for maintenance and provision for her separate residence.

(2.) The 1st defendant is her husband. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant by his second wife. The allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint are mainly that she was married to the ist defendant about 40 years ago, that a daughter was born to her by the 1st defendant and that three years after the birth of her daughter she lost her eye-sight. Her husband developed hatred towards her and took a second wife and neglected her and finally deserted her. That took place about 30 years ago. She issued a registered notice dated 16th October, 1957, Exhibit B-1, through her lawyer claiming maintenance at Rs. 600 per annum for 12 years. That demand was not complied with. So she filed the suit as pauper on 12th September, 1958. In her suit she claimed past maintenance for 12 years at Rs. 50 per mensem and future maintenance at the same rate, Rs. 50 as annual provision for clothing and a sum of Rs. 500 as a provision for her separate residence and a charge on the family properties.

(3.) The claim was opposed by the 1st defendant, her husband, on two grounds: firstly, that the maintenance claim of the plaintiff was settled by paying her a sum of Rs. 1,500 about two years after he took a second wife, and that the plaintiff's father received the amount on her behalf in the presence of elders with a specific understanding that he would purchase in her name about 3 acres of wet land and that ever since she had been living with her father without any demur and for that reason her present claim is untenable ; and secondly, that the maintenance claim was excessive on the footing that he would not realise a net annual income of not less than Rs. 5,500 per year as alleged but that the income of the family was only about Rs. 1,000 per annum and that further the family was indebted in a sum of Rs. 3,500 to the creditors and that in any case Rs. 50 per annum would be sufficient for the plaintiff to meet the requirements in life and that she was not entitled to any past maintenance.