KODIGUDLA KANAKA RAJU Vs. KODIGUDLA DURGA BHAVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the husband challenging the order dt.18-3-1996 in Criminal M.P.No.169/1996 in MC.No.147/1995 on the file of the Family Court at Vijayawada granting interim maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month.

(2.) The facts in brief are that respondent No.l herein averred in her petition that she is the wife of the revision petitioner and that their marriage was performed at Pami Dut Bhavan, Governorpet, Vijayawada on 14-7-1994 in the presence of elders of Communist Party of India and its workers as well as relations and friendsand that they led family life. It is also her case that they had conjugal relationship even prior to the date of their marriage and this fact was made known to the elders of both sides and consequently they were obliged to perform the marriage while she was at the stage of advanced pregnancy. Thereafter some differences have arisen and then the respondent is said to have harassed her and that resulted in their separation. Ultimately the revision petitioner is said to have obtained the decree of divorce in O.P.No.335 /1994 on the file of II Additional Sub Judge, Vijayawada and she in turn filed MC.No.147/1995 seeking maintenance for herself and their child. She also filed miscellaneous petition seeking interim maintenance for both of them, but the learned Judge granted interim maintenance of Rs.250/- per month to respondent No.1 -wife and refused the same to the son. Aggrieved by the above order, the husband filed this revision petition.

(3.) Smt. P. Bala Rani, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that admittedly the wife was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and that itself would go to show that she was leading adulterous life and hence she is not entitled to any maintenance. On the other hand Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the wife contended that there were conjugal relations between the petitioner and respondent No.l even prior to their marriage and he denied the allegation that she was leading adulterous life. He further contended that all the contentions now raised will have to be gone into during the enquiry in the main petition and since there is no dispute regarding the marriage, the lower Court rightly granted interim maintenance.