MUSUNURU NAGENDRAMMA Vs. MUSUNURU RAMAKOTAYYA
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
Subba Rao, J. -
(1.) I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment prepared by ray learned brother. I agree with the conclusion arrived at by him. But I do not propose to express my opinion on the question whether the first wife living apart from her husband on the ground that he married a second wife is entitled to maintenance by reason of the second marriage alone; nor is it necessary to express my view on the second question whether such marriage in itself would be a sufficient ground before Act 19 of 1946 for awarding maintenance to the first wife. I agree with my learned brother on the interpretation of the provisions of Act 19 of 1948. But if the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance only under the Act, I would confine her right to maintenance only from the date of the Act. But on the finding of my learned brother that she was abandoned by her husband, with which I agree, she would be entitled to arrears of maintenance for the period before the Act also. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tenali in O. S. No. 17 of 1948.
(2.) The facts are:-- The first defendant Ramakottayya is a substantial Kamma ryot of Yadlapalli. He married the plaintiff Musunuru Nagendramma in 1929. This Musunuru Nagendramma herself is the daughter of a substantially wealthy ryot of Angalakuthura. The father of the plaintiff is said to be a nit-wit, and can only sign his name and he is said to have been assisted in the management of the family affairs by his wife. This plaintiff joined her husband in 1932. She was married when she was eleven years of ago and she joined her husband when she was 13 or 14 years old. The plaintiff and defendant have been living together up to March 1942. The marriage proved issueless. It is stated that the married life of the plaintiff and the defendant had not been a success owing to the defendant, the husband of the plaintiff, coveting the properties of his wife's parents and has been resenting her barrenness. It is stated that these bickerings between the husband and wife culminated in her being driven out of the house in March 1943 and after this the wife took her residence with her parents and some attempts were made to patch up the differences but they did not succeed. The first defendant, the husband put an end to all possibilities of reconciliation by marrying a second wife by whom he is said to have now procreated a respectable sized family.
(3.) The plaintiff has then filed the suit for recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1800 per year, for the recovery of past maintenance for five years prior to suit at the above rate, for provision for plaintiff's residence in the family house or for recovery of Rs. 1200/- in lieu thereof; for a charge over all or any portion of the properties of plaint A-1 schedule for the reliefs of maintenance granted in favour of her, for recovery of the movables shown in D schedule of the plaint or their value of Rs. 3950/- and for directing the 1st defendant to render an account of the income from the E schedule lands, which was paid to the 1st defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff during the 11 years from 1932 to 1942.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.