BATHULA CHINA KOTIREDDI Vs. BATHULA RAMANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of a matrimonial dispute raised by the appellant as petitioner against his wife, the 1st respondent in O.P. No. 47 of 1972 In the Subordinate judge's Court Chirala. He filed that O P. under sec 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the 1st respondent was living in adultery with the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent In her turn filed I.A.No. 1068/1972 under section 24 of that Act for maintenance pendent lite sit the race of Rs. 100/- per month and a sum of Rs 600/- to meet her legal expenses. On 2-8-1973 on this interlocutory application, the Court directed the appellant to pay the 1st respondent interim maintenance at the rate of Rs, 40/- per month and a sum of Rs. 100/- towards legal expenses. It is against chat order, C.M.A. No. 393 of 1973 has been filed.

(2.) On 20-9-1973, the main O. P. stood posted. When it came up for hearing on that day. the appellant sought an adjournment on the ground that he was Intending to prefer an appeal against the order of 2nd August, 1973 made on the Interlocutory Application. On that day, the court passed the following order in the main O.P. :

(3.) While granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month pendente lite and a sum of Rs, 100/- towards legal expenses, tht court took into consideration every relevant factor. On an examination of the position. It came to the conclusion that the I st respondent was doing cooly work, but unfortunately owing to the drought situation she was not able to secure any work and that she had no properties, whereas her husband had some immovable property, Acs. 3 in extent. Taking these two circumstances together, the lower Court fixed a sum of Rs. 40/' as maintenance pendent lite and Rs. 100/- towards legal expenses, There is no doubt that she is entitled to interim maintenance and also to the legal expenses. Otherwise, she would be starved to death, while the divorce proceedings are going on. Moreover the amounts awarded ara quite reasonable, having, regard to the circumstances of the case. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with this order in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. C.M.A. No.393 of 1973 is dismissed.