Decided on September 24,1954



- (1.) defendants are appliants, O. S. No. 63 of 1945 was filed by the respondent herein on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court of Masulipatam, for recovery of maintenance, past and future, and for other incidental reliefs.Her case was that her deceased husband Narsimha Rao and appellants were brothers, that her husband died about years ago soon after her marriage and that no maintenance whatsoever was provded by the appellants to her.She alleged that the net income realised to the family of the defendants was not less than Rs.5,000.00 a year and that she was entitled to claim future maintenance at the rate of Rs.50.00 per mensem. So far as the past maintenance was concerned, she limited her claim to the sum of Rs.300.- a year for a period of 12 years. She also prayed that provision might be made for cattle, utensils and residence.
(2.) The 4th defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by his brothers i.e., defendants 1 to 3. He contended that after the death of the father of defendants 1 to 4, their maternal uncle, that is, the plaintiffs father, was managing their affairs and providing maintenance for the plaintiff out of their family income. that the maintenance claimof the plaintiff was settled by providing her with a thatched house and allotting 40 cocoanut trees and 15 palmyrah treees, and that she was not entitled to claim any maintenance, past or future. He also urged that, in any event, having regard to the income of the family, not more than Rs.100.00 per annum should be awarded to her.
(3.) The Subordinate Judge of Masulipatnam discussed the evidence bearing on this question of settlement of maintenance in paragraphs 5 and 6 and found that the defendants story was absolutely false. He found that the family income was not less than Rs.3,000.00 per year and awarded future maintenance at the rate of Rs.400.00 per year. He held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim arrears of maintenance for a perioid of 12 years at the rate of Rs.200 per year. In lieu of residence, he directed that either a lump sum of Rs.300.00 or a sum of Rs.2.00 per month might be paid. For utensils and other moveables, he allowed Rs.100.00. The entire "A" schedule properties attached to the plaint were charged for the maintenance decreed.The defendants have preferred the above appeal reiterating the several objections raised by them in the trial court and the plaintiff has filed a memo of cross-objections claiming enhancement of future maintenance by Rs.100.00.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.