POLAVARAPU SRI DEVI Vs. PALAVARAPU GANGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in I.A.No.1415 of 1999 in O.P.No.118 of 1988 dated 28.7,2000 allowing the application for cancellation of maintenance order granted in favour of the wife in I.A.No.1038 of 1992 dated 24.7.1995 with effect from the date of the order, led the aggrieved wife to file the present appeal.

(2.) The appellant and the respondent were married and later, the appellant obtained divorce on 31.1.1989 in O.P.No.118 of 1988. Then, after four (4) years, she filed LA. No.1038 of 1992 for grant of maintenance and the trial Court awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month by the order dated 24.7.1995. She was also awarded Rs.400 per month in M.C.No.26 of 1992 by the order of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the husband filed Cri. M.P. No. 2062 of 1997 in M.C. No. 26 of 1992 for cancellation of the said order. The husband contended that the wife purchased a site from one Smt. Vallibai under a sale deed dated 31.3.1995 for Rs.50,000, whereas, the real value of the site was Rs.1,50,000 at Rs.2,500 per square yard. In the site, which is situated in Pappula Street, a business locality, she constructed a pucca terraced house and let out the same to a tenant for a sum of Rs. 1,500 per month. The wife was claimed to have invested Rs.2,00,000 for constructing the house and she was also claimed to be getting monthly income of Rs.4,000 to Rs.5,000 by running Sridevi Beauty Parlour. The husband, therefore, contended that the wife was more affluent than him and requires no maintenance.

(3.) Against the claim for cancellation of maintenance awarded, the wife contended that an amount of Rs. 1,000 was awarded after full-fledged enquiry and when the husband did not obey the said order, she had to take recourse to execution proceedings in E.P.No.196 of 1998 in I.A.No. 1038 of 1992 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The husband was compelled to pay the maintenance only after overruling his objections and even in M.C.No.26 of 1992; the husband was irregular in paying the maintenance awarded. The wife, further, contended that the maintenance awarded in M.C.No.26 of 1992 was cancelled without giving reasonable opportunity to her against which, she filed Cri A.P. No. 40 of 1999 before the District and Sessions Court. She, further, contended that the allegations about the purchase of the house site, construction of the house and getting rents are false and it was the same plea taken by the husband that was rejected in M.C.No.26 of 1992. The wife also contended that she was forced to maintain her two sons due to the husband deserting her by taking another lady even during the subsistence of the wedlock and she also claims to be not running any Beauty Parlour. She further contended that the husband, in possession of immovable properties and running a prosperous business in real estate and slates, was avoiding to pay the maintenance and even the reasonable maintenance was not paid and an amount of Rs.81,000 was due to her by the date of the petition. The wife, thereby, desired that the request for cancelling the maintenance be rejected. During the enquiry into the petition, the trial Court recorded the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and R.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. A1 to A10 and Exs.B1 to B3. -