THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT No.92 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2007 in O.S.No.70 of 2003 (O.P.No.314/2002 Pauper) on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, where under and whereby the suit filed for recovery of arrears of maintenance of Rs.72,000/- (@ Rs.2,000/- p.m. for three years i.e. from 13.06.1999 to 13.06.2002) and for a direction to pay maintenance to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. from the date of filing of suit towards future maintenance and for costs of the suit was dismissed. 2 For the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: 3 The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant took place about 30 years back and that out of their wedlock they were blessed with one son and two daughters. Their son died due to ill health and that their first daughter was given in adoption. After that, the defendant developed extra marital relationship with some other woman and deserted the plaintiff and her daughter. Hence she filed a suit in O.Sno.1043 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and the same was compromised on 20.07.1994 where under the defendant agreed to give a house bearing D.No.7-15 at Nadupuru towards her maintenance. During the year 1999 the plaintiff performed the marriage of her daughter by taking loan to a tune of Rs.70,000/- but the defendant failed to pay any amount. Subsequently her daughter died on 04.10.2000 and that the plaintiff performed all the death ceremonies and that the defendant had not even come to see his daughter nor did he give any amount to meet the expenses. The defendant is working as Poojari in Somalinga Temple and getting salary of Rs.10,000/- p.m and also owning movable and immovable properties. Hence the suit. 4 The defendant contested the said suit by way of filing a written statement. He denied the extra marital relationship. The defendant contended that in the suit filed by the plaintiff a settlement was arrived at between the parties and in that settlement, he gave a house to the plaintiff towards full and final settlement. He further contended that in that settlement the plaintiff agreed that she will not claim any future maintenance. He further contended that he performed the marriage of his daughter by spending Rs.20,000/-. That the plaintiff is doing money lending business by selling the house for Rs.1,20,000/- and that he has no means to pay anything to the plaintiff and in turn the plaintiff is having sufficient means to maintain herself and prayed to dismiss the suit. 5 Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim past maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. from 13.06.1999 to 13.06.2002? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim future maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. from the defendant? 3. To what relief? 6 During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined but no documents were marked. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 and B.2. 7 After considering both oral and documentary evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred. 8 Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment of the trial court is correct legal and proper? 9 The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.1043 of 1993 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and in that suit a settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant has been arrived at, but the children of the plaintiff were not paid any amount, that therefore, the present suit was filed claiming arrears of maintenance and also for a direction to the defendant to pay the future maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. but the said suit was dismissed and hence he prays to set aside the same. 10 None appeared for the respondent/defendant inspite of service of notice. 11 The certified copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1043 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Visakhapatnam would clearly go to show that the plaintiff’s claim has been adjudicated fully and finally, wherein the defendant agreed to give item No.1 of the plaint schedule property i.e. RCC building of the defendant to the plaintiff. So in terms of that settlement, the plaintiff / appellant is not entitled to claim any maintenance. 12 However, a specific plea has been taken that the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance. But during the course of evidence, it came to light that the plaintiff required amount for the purpose of performing the marriage of her daughter. Therefore, the remedy of the plaintiff is otherwise if she is unable to perform the marriage of her daughter. There is no pleading on that aspect. When there is no pleading, any amount of evidence is valueless. Therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed the said suit and hence the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal need no interference. 13 In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J 03.08.2011 Kvsn