THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.1672 OF 1993 & Cross Objections SR No.50018 of 1993 Between: Nalluri Audiseshaiah ..Appellant Vs Nalluri Koteswaramma …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.1672 OF 1993 & Cross Objections SR No.50018 of 1993 JUDGMENT:- The first defendant in O.S.No.124 of 1984 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Ongole is the appellant herein. The suit was filed by the wife of the appellant who is the first plaintiff for maintenance and also for the marriage expenses of the second plaintiff. The allegations in the plaint goes to show that the marriage was performed 25 years back and during the lawful wedlock the second plaintiff was born. The plaint allegations goes to show that marriage was performed against the will of the first defendant though the first plaintiff is none other than the sister’s daughter. The first defendant used to ill-treat and harass the first plaintiff and thereafter he deserted her and did not provide any maintenance. The first defendant has got A & B share itself which are valuable and income fetched. When the plaintiff gave a notice for maintenance the defendant gave a reply. He sold some of the properties which are not true and valid. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for maintenance which charge over the property. The first defendant filed a written statement making general allegations of the conduct of the first plaintiff and the allegations that he refused to maintain the first plaintiff and did not provide maintenance and that he deserved the first plaintiff is false. The first defendant expressed the willingness to receive the plaintiffs and maintain them. He claims to have done business and suffered loses and sold the property to the defendant Nos.3 and 4 for valuable consideration. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues have been framed. 1. Whether the first plaintiff is entitled for separate maintenance and if so at what rate? 2. Whether the first plaintiff is entitled for separate residence of Rs.10,000/- in the alternative? 3. Whether first plaintiff is entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards marriage expenses of second plaintiff? 4. Whether first plaintiff is entitled for charge over A and B Schedule properties for the claim in the suit? POINTS:- On behalf of the plaintiffs PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the defendant first defendant was examined as DW.1 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-5. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge granted maintenance for Rs.250/- per month to the first plaintiff and also a charge over item No.4 of the plaint “A” schedule towards her separate residence, in the alternative she is entitled to a sum of Rs.60/- per month. First defendant is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards marriage expenses of the second plaintiff and created a charge over “A” schedule property. The claim for past maintenance was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the first defendant filed the appeal challenging the grant of maintenance to the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff has also filed a Cross Objections (SR) No.50018 of 1993 as an indigent person and she was permitted to prosecute the same. She questioned the refusal of the lower court in granting past maintenance and also maintenance at Rs.250/- for future maintenance as being very low. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether granting of maintenance by the lower court is legally valid and sustainable? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for further enhancement of any maintenance? (3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? (4) To what relief? POINT:- The suit is of the year 1984 and the decree was passed in 1992. It is only a claim for maintenance of Rs.250/- by the lower court. The fact that the first plaintiff was married to the first defendant and that the second plaintiff was born in lawful wedlock is not disputed. The fact that both of them are living separately is also not in dispute. The fact that the first defendant has not provided any maintenance to the first plaintiff is also not in dispute. The claim of the first defendant that he is willing to receive the first plaintiff and maintain her is hallow since he did not file any application for restitution of conjugal rights. The lower court has considered all these aspects and also considered the claim of the plaintiffs. The first defendant cannot therefore contend that there is no liability to pay the maintenance. In fact by the change of present law he cannot even take the plea of no liability. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the claim of the first defendant questioning the maintenance is not valid and bona fide and I do not find any reasons to interfere with the judgment of the lower court. Insofar as the enhancement of the claim by the first plaintiff and past means is concerned, I do not find that the plaintiff has got every right to seek for further enhancement or variation of maintenance and she can also approach the criminal court for payment of the reasonable maintenance as provided under Section 125 Cr.P.C which is a better and effective remedy and I do not think that at this juncture, after long lapse of time, this court will be justified in interfering with the maintenance claim determined in 1984 by the lower court. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the appeal as well as cross objections. Therefore the Appeal Suit as well as Cross Objections are dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 31-12-2010 TSNR