Masna Bhagya Laxmi vs Masna Veera Bhadrudu

P.S. Narayana, J.—Heard Mr. T. Ramulu, the Counsel representing the revision petitioner, and Mr. Lakshmi Narasimhachari, the Counsel representing the respondent.

The revision petitioner Smt. M. Bhagya Laxmi as plaintiff instituted a suit O.S. No. 57 of 2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, for maintenance and also moved an application I.A. No. 48 of 2003 u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying the Court to pay her a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month from the date of petition towards interim maintenance, from the respondent-husband in the suit, her husband, M. Veera Bhadrudu.

The specific case of the revision petitioner is that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent-husband whose marriage having been celebrated on 4.12.1997 at Gajwel as per the Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. No doubt, several other averments relating to the presentation of cash, gold, household articles and clothes during the time of marriage also had been stated. It was also stated that after one year of the marriage, the respondent had developed illicit intimacy with one Sandhya who was deserted by her husband and he has kept the said Sandhya as concubine. Several other factual aspects also had been narrated in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the application before the learned Junior Civil Judge at Gajwel. Respondent-husband filed a counter in detail denying almost all the allegations and taking a specific stand that he is working in N.R.S.A. at Bala Nagar and while he was working in the said company he had acquainted himself with one Sandhya and had developed love and thereafter without the consent of their parents and elders he married Sandhya on 3.1.1996 as per Hindu customs, rites and traditions at Yadagirigutta Kalyana Mandapam. They were living together as husband and wife and that their marriage was inter-caste marriage against the wishes of his parents and community elders. Thus, in substance the stand taken by the respondent-husband is that Sandhya is his first wife and hence the marriage with the petitioner is not a valid marriage in the eye of law and hence, she is not entitled to any relief whatsoever in the suit much less in the application claiming for interim maintenance.

The learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, after making Exs. A-1 to A-6 ultimately, had arrived at a conclusion that though the petitioner is claiming that she is the legally wedded wife and the alleged Sandhya is not legally wedded wife of her husband, unless it is established by the petitioner the said fact before the Court she is not entitled for any maintenance and the claim of the petitioner will be decided only after full trial and that at this stage, it cannot be said that whether the said Sandhya is a concubine or legally wedded first wife of the respondent and placing reliance on certain judgments ultimately came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for and dismissed the petition without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred the present civil revision petition.

Mr. T. Ramulu, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner-plaintiff, would contend that Exs. A-1-Wedding Card, A2-Health Card, A-3-Legal Notice, A-4-Postal Receipt, A-5-Acknowledgement Card and A-6-Returned cover marked on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff prima-facie establish the matrimonial tie between the parties. The learned Counsel also would contend that contrary material was not placed by the respondent-husband to show that the marriage tie with Sandhya is prior in point of time, except taking such a stand for the purpose of defeating the granting of interim maintenance to which the petitioner-plaintiff is entitled to in law. The learned Counsel also submitted that the learned Junior Civil Judge had placed reliance on the decision in the case of Gorivelli Appanna Vs. Gorivelli Setthamma, , and the said view was not accepted by a Full Bench of this Court in a decision in P. Srinivasa Rao Vs. P. Indira and Another, . The learned Counsel also submitted that at any rate since this Court had made an interim order directing payment of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month, the said order may be continued till the disposal of the suit.

On the contrary, Mr. Lakshmi Narasimha Chad, the Counsel representing respondent-defendant-husband, would maintain that in the light of the specific stand taken by the husband that the marriage tie in between Sandhya and himself being prior in point of time and subsisting, there is no question of the second wife claiming the relief of maintenance u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or interim maintenance by way of an interlocutory application. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the report dated 28.1.2003. The Counsel also would contend that no doubt Ex. A-1, wedding card was pressed into service to which much importance cannot be attached. The learned Counsel also contended that since the crucial issue to be decided in the main suit is whether the petitioner-plaintiff as second wife is entitled to the relief of maintenance at all since the first wife Sandhya is alive. It would not be appropriate to continue the interim order during the pendency of the suit. Instead of continuing the said direction in the interest of justice a direction may be issued to dispose of the main suit itself. The learned Counsel also had placed strong reliance on Abbayolla M. Subba Reddy Vs. Padmamma, ; Khemchand Om Prakash Sharma v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 3 SCC 753 .

Heard both the Counsels.

The facts in brief already had been narrated in supra. It is no doubt true that the principal question of controversy to be decided between the parties is whether Sandhya is the first wife and the petitioner-plaintiff is the second wife as contended by the respondent-husband or whether the petitioner-plaintiff is the only wife and the said Sandhya is only a concubine. It is needless to say that this is a question to be decided on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, which may be adduced by the parties, at the time of disposal of the suit.

On 26.9.2003 while admitting the civil revision petition, this Court made the following order:

"After hearing both sides, the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month, as interim maintenance, pending further orders. The said amount is directed to be paid on or before 10th of every month commencing from October, 2003. If the respondent fails to pay the said interim maintenance, the employer of the respondent is directed to deduct the same from salary of the respondent and pay the same to the petitioner.

As it is represented by the Counsel for the respondent that he is drawing only an amount of Rs. 3,800/- (Rupees three thousand and eight hundred only) as net salary, the above amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) is ordered as interim maintenance. The respondent is directed to produce his salary certificate by next date of hearing. If there is any variation, suitable orders, modifying the quantum of maintenance will be passed."

Subsequent thereto, it is brought to the notice of this Court that though such direction was given, the amount was not being paid and hence, this Court directed the Administrative Officer to be present before this Court by order dated 5.12.2003 and in response thereto the Administrative Assistant was present on 24.12.2003 and had explained the communication gap. However, it is now brought to my notice that the amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month is being paid in pursuance of the direction of this Court every month to the petitioner-plaintiff. The question with which this Court at present is concerned is that whether the said order already passed granting interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to be paid to the petitioner-plaintiff is liable to be set aside or in any way to be modified or to be continued during the pendency of the suit. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Gorivelli Appanna''s case (supra) and followed the view expressed in that case to negative the interim maintenance. Reference was made to the Full Bench decision in P. Srinivasa Rao''s case (supra), wherein it was held that under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Courts can in exercise of its inherent powers u/s 151 of the CPC award interim maintenance, pending the application for regular maintenance and apart from Section 151, the Act itself empowers granting of interim maintenance. Hence, there cannot be any controversy that the Court has power to grant interim maintenance. Taking into consideration that the respondent-husband is working in N.R.S.A. this Court while admitting the civil revision petition had made an order directing payment of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand-only) per month. Strong reliance was placed on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Abbayyolla M. Subba Reddy''s case (supra), wherein it was held that a Hindu woman who is married after coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to a Hindu male having a lawfully wedded wife cannot maintain a claim for maintenance u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Full Bench had not accepted the view expressed in the case of C. Obula Konda Reddy Vs. C. Pedda Venkata Lakshmamma, . Reliance was also placed on Khemcand Omprakash Sharma v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (supra), wherein the Apex Court held that the appellant first wife was alive and there had been no annulment of marriage by a decree of divorce or otherwise, the second wife would not be entitled to maintenance even u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973. There cannot be any controversy about this proposition of law. However, specific stand was taken by the petitioner that she is the only legally wedded wife and she had also produced some prima facie material in proof thereof. Though the respondent-husband had taken specific stand that there was a prior marriage and the said marriage is subsisting, no material had been placed before the Court, at the stage of disposal of interlocutory application. As already stated supra, this is an aspect to be decided at the appropriate stage while disposing of the suit. Hence, no further opinion need to be expressed at this stage in this regard. Suffice it to state that this Court while admitting the civil revision petition had exercised the discretion in a just and proper way and had issued a direction to the respondent-husband to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month as maintenance to the petitioner-wife. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper if the said direction as it is, is maintained till the disposal of the suit. Certain other factual aspects and certain controversial questions also had been brought to the notice of this Court. It is needless to say that both the parties are at liberty to canvass all these contentions before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel.

No doubt, at this stage, Mr. Narasimhachari, the Counsel representing the respondent-husband, made a request for early disposal of the suit itself. Since, it is a simple suit for claiming of maintenance filed by the wife against the husband, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel is hereby directed to, make an endeavour to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.