MANUBOTHULA RAMA RAO Vs. MANUBOTHULA VENKAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are connected second appeals. The main suit out of which the litigation arose was brought by a Hindu wife against her husband, the appellant in S.A. No. 1432 of 1927, for future maintenance and arrears of maintenance. The first Court dismissed the suit, but the appellate Court awarded the plaintiff arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10 a month and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12 a month so long as the defendant remained in his present service in the railway and thereafter at Rs. 10 a month. Second Appeal No. 1432 of 1927.

(2.) In this appeal the appellant's main point is that there should not have been any decree for maintenance because the respondent (plaintiff) has not established her right to maintenance according to Hindu law. The facts established are that the appellant married the respondent some 21 years before the suit, of which for the first 13 years they lived in harmony together and for the remaining period of eight years the parties lived separately. The wife accuses the husband of cruelty, abandonment, and domestic infidelity. The husband denies these charges and says that the wife has only herself to blame and that he is willing to take her back. As usual both these charges and explanations were found by the lower appellate Court to be somewhat exaggerated, But the truth as found by the lower appellate Court is that the relations between the spouses have bean so estranged for the last eight years that they have found it impossible live together and have more or less reconciled themselves to that fact. During the period the husband has not maintained his wife. The wife was, it seems seriously ill, for two years at Ellore but the husband who was then employed at Hyderabad made no inquiries and paid no thought to the wife's condition. After she became a little better, she and her maternal uncle went to Hyderabad in 1920 and asked the appellant to take her into the house. He refused and sent them a way. Sometime later the husband came to the neighbourhood of the wife's residence on some business but never cared to go to the wife or to make any inquiries of her. He now excuses himself upon the ground of rain and badness of the road which are excuses merely. On the evidence I have not the slightest doubt that the appellate Court came to the correct conclusion that the husband has deserted his wife and neglected his duty to maintain her. In these circumstances the plaintiff was clearly entitled to a decree.

(3.) The decree actually awarded Rupees 12 a month after suit so long as the defendant is in railway service and Rs. 10 after he retires. The respondent asks that the limitation may be removed. I think it right not merely in the circumstances of the husband but also to prevent further estrangement between the parties that this limit should be removed and I consider that a sum of Rs. 12 a month is by no means excessive having regard to the fact that the husband's salary is well over Rupees 120 and that he is supposed to have saved something and will on retirement become entitled to his provident fund money. I therefore modify the decree of the lower appellate Court by removing the limit for the payment of Rupees 12 to the period of the defendant's employment.