THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.No.3744 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2003 in O.S.No.79 of 1999 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 1st plaintiff is the wife and plaintiff Nos.2 and 4 are the daughters. 3rd plaintiff is the minor son of the defendants. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 being minors are represented by the 1st plaintiff, who is their natural mother. The plaintiffs’ case in brief is as follows: The marriage of the 1st plaintiff and defendant took place at Tirupati on 20.05.1982 and they are blessed with plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 out of their wedlock. It is alleged that the 1st defendant had driven out the plaintiffs from his house in August, 1989 and since then the plaintiffs have been residing in the parents house of the 1st plaintiff. It is also alleged that the 1st defendant failed to provide maintenance and the plaintiffs were forced to file M.C.No.13 of 1991 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Khammam against the 1st defendant and an amount of Rs.300/- per month to the 1st plaintiff and Rs.150/- per month to each of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 were awarded as per the orders dated 15.10.1991 in the said maintenance case. Subsequently on the applications of the plaintiffs in Crl.MP.No.215 of 1993 and 216 of 1993, the amounts awarded towards maintenance have been increased to Rs.350/- to the 1st plaintiff and Rs.175/- each to the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. The 2nd plaintiff was studying SSC and plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 were studying 7th class and 4th class respectively on the date of filing of the suit and 1st plaintiff with great difficulty meeting their educational expenses by spending about Rs.1,000/- per month. It is also their case that the 2nd plaintiff is aged about 14 years and her marriage has to be performed and they required an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards her marriage expenses and that the plaintiff is entitled to claim return of Jahez articles and dower amount and 2 Dinar-E-Sharie equavalent to half tula of gold. They claimed the amounts ie. Rs.1,19,050/- towards Jahez Articles, Rs.11,250/- towards dower amount, Rs.2,000/- towards 2 Dinar-E-Sharie equivalent to half tula of gold, Rs.1,50,000/- towards marriage expenses of plaintiff No.2 and Rs.2,16,000/- towards educational expenses of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 till they attain majority @ Rs.1,000/- per month each. The suit was filed originally in forma pauperies. The trial Court framed the following issues. 1. Whether plaintiff No.1 is entitled for recovery of Jahez articles, dower from D-1? 2. Whether plaintiff No.2 is entitled for recovery of marriage expenses? If so to what amount? 3. Whether plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for maintenance? If so to what amount? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and PWs 2 and 3 were examined. None were examined on behalf of the defendants and no documents were marked. The lower Court having considered the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.1,68,250/- ie. for Rs.36,250/- towards Jahez articles and dower amount and Rs.60,000/- towards marriage expenses of 2nd plaintiff and Rs.72,000/- towards educational expenses of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. Challenging the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower Court failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective and only interested witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and no documents have been filed in support of their case and that PW.1 in her evidence admitted that list of Jahez articles were not prepared. It is also his submission that as there was threat to the life of the defendant he did not enter into the witness box. Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs submitted that the lower Court having appreciated the evidence on record rightly decreed the suit and there is no rebuttal evidence in this case and there is nothing to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the lower Court. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment of the lower Court is sustainable and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? Admittedly, except the evidence let in on behalf of the plaintiffs, there is no other evidence in this case. The 1st plaintiff has been examined as PW.1. As seen from her evidence the marriage of PW.1 and the defendant took place on 20.05.1982. After the marriage, they lived together for 7 years. Her specific case is that her father presented Jahez articles as shown in the plaint to the 1st defendant worth of Rs.1,19,050/-. It is also her case that her parents presented an amount of Rs.11,250/- towards dower and ½ tula of gold to 1st defendant at the time of marriage. Her specific case is that the copies of the description of the articles given as Jahez articles were torn away by her brother-in-law and father-in-law. It is also her specific case that she required an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to meet the marriage expenses of the 2nd plaintiff and an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- to meet the educational expenses of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. The defendant has been working as a Senior Auditor. According to PW.1, the gross income of the defendant is Rs.17,000/- per month. He is also owning a house worth of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is an admitted case that the plaintiffs have filed a maintenance case against the 1st defendant and they were granted amounts as referred above. Though P.W.1 was cross- examined at length nothing has been elicited in her evidence to discredit her claim. She has also categorically denied that she threatened the defendant to kill, if he comes to kill up. According to PW.2, an amount of Rs.15,000/- was paid 15 days prior to the date of marriage vide D.D.No.744426 dated 03.05.1982 and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by another D.D. five days prior to the date of marriage vide D.D.No.744443 on 02.05.1982 drawn on State Bank of India, Chittoor. He has also deposed about the dower articles and gold given to the 1st defendant all worth of Rs.1,20,000/- to the 1st defendant. PW.3 is another witness, who worked as Mouzan in Masjeed at Kasba Bazar. According to him at the request of PW.1 he was searching for a bride groom to the 2nd plaintiff and one Abdul Nabi, S/o Abdul Hussain demanded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry. PWs 2 and 3 were also cross-examined at length, but nothing has been elicited, there is no rebuttal evidence in this case. The lower Court has properly appreciated the evidence and rightly decreed the suit and there is nothing on record to interfere with the same. Accordingly, there are no merits in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dt. 16th September, 2011 PNV