MALLADI VIDYARANYA Vs. MALLADI LAXMI TRIPURA SUNDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in CRP No. 2028 of 1989 who is the wife of the petitioner in CRP No. 1100 of 1989 filed OP No. 55 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali as an indigent person, claiming maintenance at Rs. 2000/- per month and for Rs. 500/- for residence and for other reliefs on the ground of desertion by her husband. Pending disposal of the above OP she filed an application IA No. 1679 of 1987 under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and section 151 CPC for interim maintenance. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the wife but Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked on her behalf. On behalf of the husband, R Ws. 1 and 2 are examined and Exs. B-1 and B-2 are marked. In the IA also the wife claimed maintenance at the same rate as in the main OP and in addition she claimed Rs. 15,000/- towards legal expenses. The husband resisted the application on the ground that what has been stated in the petition is not correct and according to him except the earnings as a Lecturer, he has no other source of income. Ex. A-6 is the salary certificate. The lower Court came to the conclusion that the respondent is getting a monthly salary of Rs. 2000/- and he is also getting an amount of Rs. 550/- towards rent. Besides he has got some landed property and the income there from can reasonably be estimated at Rs. 10,000/- per annum, The Court below accordingly estimated the monthly income of the husband at Rs. 3,300/ and granted 1/5th of the total income as interim maintenance to the wife relying on a judgment in Smt. Sarojadevi v. Ashok Puri Goswami (1) (1987) II Civil Law Journal, 607 i.e, at Rs. 650/- towards maintenance and Rs. 150/- for residence. In addition, the lower Court also granted an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards legal expenses. Aggrieved against the grant of interim maintenance and also legal expenses the husband filed CRP No 1100 of 1989 and having not satisfied with the said interim maintenance the wife filed CRP No 2028 of 1989.

(2.) Admittedly the marriage between the parties took place on 22-4-1984, but started living separately from 6-9-1985 because of the misunderstandings that arose between both the parties. The main allegation of the wife is that the marriage could not be consummated because of impotency of her husband. She also alleges that she was illtreated, driven out of her matrimonial house and she was also deprived of her jewellery and she was depending upon her brother. On the other hand the contention of the husband is that his wife is interested in subjecting him to harassment both physically and mentally and his source of livelihood is only as a Lecturer in the Taluq Junior College Tenali. Now in these revision petitions we are not concerned with all the allegations made by the wife and the counter allegations made by the husband in order to find out who is at fault. But suffice it to mention that the husband never stated anything about the character of his wife. As the position stands, they are residing separately. He has also not filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights as provided under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act The wife filed the suit for maintenance and for return of jewellery. She has got a right to file a separate suit in a competent Civil Court. The OP as such as filed is maintainable. Pending the suit when there are admittedly differences between the two parties and when they are admittedly residing separately the question of probing in detail further at this stage does not arise. The only question that is left for the Court is to find out whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself. If on the pleadings and on the allegations the wife is at fault and she is unchaste or bad character and deserted her husband for no cause then she is not entitled for any maintenance. But in this case as nothing is alleged about her character and the wife alleges that she was illtreated and driven out of her house and the husband denies the same it can be said that the question of reunion between the parties at this stage does not arise. Even if there is any offer by the husband it will be only an empty formality.

(3.) The contention of Sri Y. Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband that without a finding whether the wife is at fault or the husband is at fault, the lower Court was not justified in granting interim maintenance, is not correct. To prevent the vagrancy and to see that the wife who has no means has to maintain herself pending the dispute, the Court has to consider whether a reasonable amount can be awarded or not. In cases of this nature, maintenance to sustain the wife can be granted provided the wife has not suffered any other disability as contemplated under the Hindu Marriage Act.