P. Venkata Chalapathi vs P. Girija

C.Y. Somayujulu, J.—Defendant in O.S. No. 201 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati, is the appellant.

Respondent filed the suit seeking maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month besides Rs. 2,000/- towards clothing and shelter with a charge on the plaint ''A'' schedule property, against the appellant alleging that the marriage between her and the appellant, who is an employee at Tirumala, took place and on 25.7.1971 at Srikalahasti and after marriage they lived at Tirumala. Appellant at the instance of his relatives began treating her cruelly and drove her away from his house, and did not take her back to his society and filed O.P. 38/72 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which was dismissed on merits by the Trial Court and confirmed in appeal by this Court in A.A.O. No. 807 of 1979, holding that she is justified in living away from the appellant.

In his written statement, appellant admitted the marriage between him and the respondent and denied ill-treatment. His contention is that she has sufficient means to maintain herself and so is not entitled to claim maintenance from him because her attitude of not claiming maintenance for a long time amounts abandonment and waiver of her right to claim maintenance from him. His next contention is that plaint ''A'' schedule property is the self-acquired property of his brother and that he has no right or interest therein and so respondent cannot claim charge over the said property.

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed six issues for trial. The respondent examined herself as P.W. 1 and another witness as P.W. 2 and marked Exs. A1 to A3 on her behalf. Appellant examined himself as DW 1 and two other witnesses as D Ws 2 and 3 and marked Exs. B1 to B9 on his behalf. The learned Trial Judge holding that the respondent is justified in seeking separate maintenance, granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month without creating a charge on the plaint ''A'' schedule property holding that the said property does not belong to the appellant, and dismissed the rest of the claim of respondent.

Since, respondent did not prefer cross-objection or cross-appeal questioning the adverse findings against her the only point for consideration is to what amount of future maintenance, if any, is the respondent entitled to and at what rate ?

The order in A.A.O. 807/79 where it was held that the appellant had driven out by the respondent from his house and treated her cruelly became final. That finding operates as res judicata in this case. That apart the evidence of respondent as P.W. 1 shows that she was treated with scant courtesy, and insults were being hurled at her and the appellant used to ask her "xxxxxxxxx" referring to anonymous letters alleged to have been received by him without showing the letters to her. Nothing useful was brought out during cross-examination of P.W. 1 to disbelieve her above statement. This conduct of appellant also established that he was treating the respondent cruelly. Therefore, she is entitled to live separately from the appellant and seek maintenance from him."

The respondent claimed Rs. 500/- towards future maintenance. Appellant was working as Superintendent in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam and retired from service in November, 1981. He denied the suggestion that he voluntarily retired from service to avoid the claim of the respondent for maintenance. Had he not sought voluntarily retirement, the appellant would have continued in that job for nearly 20 years and earned increments and promotions. But for the reasons best known to him, he resigned and took up legal profession. Therefore, the Trial Court ordering Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance to the respondent cannot be said to be unreasonable or on higher side. Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal and hence the appeal is dismissed. No costs.