PARCHURI RAJYA LAKSHMIR Vs. PARCHURI VISWA SANKARA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner questions the order of the learned Subordinate Judge at Machi-lipatnam in I.A. No. 564 of 1985 in O.P. No. 127 of 1984 dated 12-3-1991. -The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent filed the said O.P. No. 127 of 1984 for restitution of conjugal rights and the petitioner herein filed I. A. No. 564 of 1985 for interim maintenance and expenses to prosecute and defend, in the said O. P. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the said f.A. granting the petitioner herein maintenance at Rs. 150.00 per month instead of Rs. 200.00 per month as claimed by her and also Rs. 500.00 towards legal expenses. The learned Subordinate Judge granted the said interim maintenance only from 1-12-1990, even though the said I. A. was filed in February, 1985. In this C.R.P. the petitioner contends that she is entitled to grant of interim maintenance from the date of the filing of the I.A. i.e., from February, 1985. She also contends that she is entitled to interim maintenance at Rs. 200.00 per month. The learned counsel of the respondent submits that the said O.P. was dismissed for default on 28-6-1991 and that therefore the C.R.P, has become infructuous inasmuch as there cannot be any claim for interim maintenance, once the main O.P. itself is no longer pending. He relies on the judgment of Justice Radhakrishna Rao in "Donti Reddy Chinna Venkat Reddy v. Donti Reddy Vijaya Laxmi, 1990 (1) An WR 374 wherein the learned Judge, in a very short order held as follows :

(2.) Though the case is listed for 'ex parte orders', yet Mr. R. Ramanarayana has appeared and on his request to be heard, we have heard both the sides.

(3.) The facts leading to the case are that the respondent had originally filed O.P. 36/ 83 for restitution of conjugal rights and in that the petitioner filed I. A. 629/83 claiming interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The O.P. was dismissed as Section 9 of the Act had been declared unconstitutional by this Court. Later on, on the Supreme Court reversing the decision of this court, the respondent again filed O.P. 127/84 claiming the very same relief. The petitioner filed LA. 564/84 in that case in February, 1985 for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The application was rejected holding the property alleged as belonging to the respondent is not his individual property, but self-acquired property of his father. As against that C.R.P. No. 2513 of 1989 was filed in this Court which was disposed of on 3-12-1990 declaring the property to be the joint family property with the respondent having a share in it, and remanding the case to the trial court for fixing the quantum of interim maintenance payable to the petitioner. The learned subordinate Judge fixed the interim maintenance at Rs. 150.00 and the litigation expenses as Rs. 500.00, even though, in the application, the petitioner claimed for Rs. 200.00 as interim maintenance. Aggrieved by the order, she has preferred the present revision. During the pendency of the revision the O.P. 127/84 has been dismissed for default on 28-6-1991. Because of such fact, the submission was urged on behalf of the respondent at the hearing of the revision before the learned single Judge that the original petition itself having been dismissed, the question of payment of interim maintenance does notarise. In this revision we are confined only to the question of interim maintenance as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.