Y MANGATAYARU Vs. Y SESHAVATARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner married the respondent according to Hindu rites at Bhimavaram on 10-5-1969. The petitioner gave birth to a female child on

(2.) The husband filed a counter alleging that not only she was living in adultery,but she continued to live in adultery, and she is not entitled for maintenance. The wife was examined as PW-1. The respondent husband was examined as RW-1. Four more witnesses were examined to prove that after divorce she was moving freely. The trial court believed life version of the husband and found that she is living in adultery and refused to grant maintenance. Against that, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the divorcee wife i.e. the petitioner herein that after the divorce the question of committing the offence of adultery does not arise as she is no more a wife and the reasoning given by the lower court disentitling her from claiming maintenance is not correct. The previous proceedings in the O.P. before the Sub-Court and the order of this court in the C.M.A. shows that she is living in adultery openly to the knowledge of her husband and she is leading a promiscuous life aad a decree for divorce also has been granted. In 1976 claim for maintenance-has been filed under Sec. 125 Cr. P.C. hut the same was dismissed for default. Ths evidence of RWs. 2 to 5 shows that she is moving freely with men which gives an impression that she was having illicit connections with some persons. If at one point of time it has been found that the wife was living in adultery which ultimately resulted in suffering a decree, the court has to consider the evidence of the wife in a subsequent petition with great care and caution. The burden is heavy on the wife also to show that she was leading a virtuous life and she has repented herself.