ABBAYOLLA M SUBBA REDDY Vs. PADMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal point involved in this appeal is whether a Hindu woman who is married, after coming into force the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as Act), to a Hindu male having a living lawfully wedded wife, can maintain a claim for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as Maintenance Act).

(2.) Having disagreed with the view expressed by a single Judge of this Court in "C. Obula Konda Reddy vs. Pedda Venkata Lakshmamma1 that the 'Hindu wife' contemplated by Section 18 of the Maintenance Act means, a Hindu wife whose marriage is solemnized, though void under the Hindu Marriage Act, she is entitled to claim maintenance from the husband, our learned brother Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J. made this reference to lay down the correct position of law to the Division Bench/Full Bench/Larger Bench. This is how this appeal has come up before this Full Bench.

(3.) In the reference order, our learned brother has narrated the facts leading to filing of this appeal and briefly stated, they are as under :- The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 131/1987 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. The respondent-plaintiff filed the said suit informa pauperis claiming maintenance from the appellant at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs. 13,000/- towards the cost of gold chain and other ornaments gifted to her by her father at the time of her marriage with the appellant herein, and also to create a charge over the 'B' schedule property for the amount that may be decreed against the appellant-defendant. The case of the respondent- plaintiff is that the appellant married her according to Hindu rites and customs on 1-7-1984 in Kasi Vishwanada Swami Devasthanam, Palamaner, that the marriage was also registered before the Sub-Registrar, Palamaner on 7-11 -1984, that after consummation of the marriage in the plaintiff's parents' house, she was taken by the appellant to his village and there she came to know that the appellant was already married to one Parvathamma who begot two daughters through him and the said two daughters were already married and that the first wife Parvathamma was residing in the appellant's house in the village. It was also her case that during the negotiations for her marriage, the appellant did not inform the respondent and her parents that he was already married and his first wife was living and that the plaintiff was made to believe as if it was his first marriage. It was also the case of the plaintiff that she reconciled herself on the advice of the elders and lived with him discharging her conjugal responsibilities till the middle of 1985 and that differences arose between the plaintiff and the defendant's first wife Parvathamma and on the instigation of the first wife, the appellant began to ill-treat her and neglected to maintain her and beat her on two or three occasions and drove her out of the house on 30-12-1985 after snatching away gold chain worth Rs. 13,000/- which was presented to her at the time of her marriage by her father, and that the plaintiff returned to her parents and since then she is residing with them. It is also the case of the plaintiff that she would not have agreed to marry the appellant if he had divulged the fact that he was a married man having his first wife living. The plaintiff filed the said suit for the reliefs stated supra. The plaintiff also contended that the appellant gets an annual income of Rs. 20,000/- from his agricultural lands, that he has money lending business and that the plaintiff does not have separate property or any independent source of income and that the plaintiff is entitled to get maintenance from the defendant who is her husband.