PEDDINI ERRAYA REDDY Vs. PEDDINI SARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is the petitioner in this Civil Revision, Claiming to be wife of the defendant, plaintiff filed a suit for maintenance. In the suit, plaintiff filed an application for interim maintenance. Trial Court having directed payment of Rs. 100/ - per month as interim maintenance, this Civil Revision has been filed.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY , plaintiff on an earlier occasion, filed an application for interim maintenance in the suit. Defendant who disputes the relationship with the plaintiff contested the said application. On the finding that plaintiff has not been able to prima facie prove that she is his legally married wife such application was rejected. Trial Court held that no material either documentary or which is acceptable was proved by the plaintiff. Thereafter, this application for interim maintenance was filed in which the impugned order has been passed. Besides assailing relationship, the defendant has challenged the maintainability of the second petition on the ground that the first application has already been rejected on the finding that relationship has not been proved prima facie in this Civil Revision.

(3.) UNDERLINE portions of the aforesaid decision make it clear that on proof of fresh facts a second application for the same purpose would be maintainable. Whether the second application for the same purpose would be maintainable would depend upon the nature of the application. This Court held in 53 (1982) C.L.T. 590 [Madhu Sethi (after him) Patle Sethi and Am. v. Bishnu Sethi (after him) Digdhan Sethi and Ors.} that an application for amendment of final decree when rejected a second application for the same purpose would not be entertained. However, question of interim maintenance stands on a different consideration. Maintenance is a continuous need and on each day the need becomes fresh. See (1962) 4 O.J.D. 27 (Simhadri Subudhi v. Gwubari Subudhiani). If in the first application, some basic preconditions could not be proved for want of facts, it would not bar another application by proving fresh materials on the self same materials which were not accepted by the trial Court once, no relief can be given in a second application.