CHEMANTHULA APPALAKONDA Vs. CHAMUNTHULA CHITTEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal and cross-objections arose out of the judgment and decree passed in AS No. 22/1972 dated 28-10-1974 on the lie of the District Judge, Visakhapatnam which was directed against the judgment and decree in OS, 27/68 dated 6-11-1971 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month Rs. 300 as provision for separate residence and Rs, 100 for cooking utensils. The plaintiffs husband Ammakonda shed in 1942 while he was a member of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and the two defendants who us the step-brothers of the plaintiffs husband. According to the plaintiff she was unable to endure the ill-treatment caused to her by the defendants and she was, therefore, made to leave for her parents house and to have residence there. She issued a registered legal notice, the original of Ex A-1 to the defendants claiming maintenance. The defendants gave a reply notice on 21-3-1942 under Ex A-2 imputing her with unchastity by alleging that she eloped with one Ramulu son of Chamanthula Veeranna and as such she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. The plaintiff did not chase to file suit for declaration of her right to maintenance within twelve years after the receipt of Ex A-2, but Kept quiet. She issued another notice to the defendants on 13-2-1967 claiming maintenance at Rs. 200 per month. The defendants again gave a reply denying the plaintiffs claim reiterating the plea taken by them in the previous reply notice Ex. A-2. The plaintiff therefore, filed the above-mentioned suit claiming maintenance at the rates mentioned above. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the grounds (1) that the plaintiff is not entitled to maintenances on account of her unchasity and (2) that the suit was barred by limitation since it was not filed within 12 years from 21-3-1942 when the defendants denied the plaintiffs status as the wife of Ammakonda on account of her unchastity.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff continued to be the legally wedded wife of Ammakonda, that the suit claim was not barred by limitation that the plaintiffs husband was entitled to 1/4th share from out of the total extent of Acs. 4-70 cents of the joint family and hence a monthly maintenance of Rs. 50.00 would be just and proper and charge is created on the specified extent of Acs. 1-1-171/2 cents.