V ANJI REDDY Vs. V VENKATARAMANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a Hindu wife claiming maintenance under the provisions of Section 18(2)(b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act') has to prove not only that her husband has treated her with cruelty but also that the cruelty was such as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful or injurious to live with her husband,

(2.) The applicant in this appeal is the husband and the respondent is the wife. Their marriage took place on 22-4-1962 and they had two children. The respondent who filed the suit O. S. No. 80/75 on the file of the Sub-court Ongole, for maintenance against the appellant, contended that her husband treated her with cruelty by beating her and that ultimately he beat her and drove her out of the house in October, 1974 and that since then she had been staying with her parents. She also contended that the appellant had married one Jayamma in November, 1974 three months before the suit and was guilty of bigamy. In the suit for maintenance, the respondent claimed maintenance, at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and also claimed return of jewellery set out in 'B' Schedule and also for refund of an alleged dowry amount of Rs. 7,500/-.

(3.) The defence of the appellant was (hat the respondent developed dislike against him after the birth of the second child and also that the respondent had developed illicit intimacy with one Pothuluraiah and was writing love letters to him and that she had also illicit intimacy with the farm servant one Pitchaiah and that she was carrying on with latter the even in the house whenever the appellant had gone out. It was also contended that the respondent left the house with Pitchaiah voluntarily by taking all her jwellery. Reference is made to a lawyer's notice dated 26-11-1973 purporting to have beer, issued at the instance of the wife on 26-11-1973 asking the husband to take back the children and also sayiug that the respondent was not interested in claiming maintenance and want to live with the appellant. It is further contended by the appellant in his written statement that when the mediators went to the respondent's village she was not there and that only the children were there and that they were brought and left with the appellant-husband. It is his case that no dowry was given to him. He, therefore, prayed that the suit may be dismissed.