JAMI ADINARAYANA Vs. JAMI APPALANARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the husband of the 1 st respondent and is common in both the matters. lst respondent filed M.C.No.3 of 1982 on the file of the judicial magistrate of First Class, Narasaraopeta for grant of maintenance and the court granted Rs. 75/-p.m towards past maintenance and Rs. 150/-pm towards future maintenance. Itis stated that subsequentto the order of the Magistrate granting maintains, the parties lived together and resumed cohabitation and also be got one child.However, subsequently the wife left the petitioner to elope with one U.Ramarao and started living adulterous life. Consequently the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.912 of 1993 to cancel the maintenance granted in M.C.No.3/82. As a counter-blast, it is stated, the wife filed M.C.No.10 of 1993 for enhancement of the maintenance granted in M.C.No.3 of 1982. The court below dismissed theCrLM.P.No.912/ 93 filed by the petitioner-husband and allowed M.C.NO. 10of 1993 enhancing the maintenance to Rs.250/-p.m. Criminal Revision caseNo.528 of 1994 has been filed against the order in M.P.No.912/93 in M.C.No.3/82 and Crl.RC.No.529 of 1994has been filed against the order in MC.No. 10 of 1993. Since common question arises in both the matters, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that since the 1st respondent had resumed cohabitation and started living with the petitioner, which amounts to waiver of theclaim of maintenance granted in M.C.No.3/1982, the court couldnothavegranted the enhancement. Secondly it is contended that living in adulterous life by the 1st respondent would disentitle her for the claim of maintenance and the maintenance already granted should havebeen cancelled.

(3.) The Court below considered the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the residents of the village of U.Ramarao and the Court was not prepared to accept their evidence to hold that the 1st respondent was living in adulterous life with U.Ramarao. It was found that the entire evidence on record only made out a sketchy outline of relationship between the 1strespondent and U.Ramarao and it did not establish any illicit relationship between them In viewof the above finding reached by the court below from proper inference and appreciation of the evidence on record, I can not interfere with the finding reached by the court below and hold that the 1st respondent was leading an adulterous life with U.Ramarao.