VENKANNA Vs. SATYANARAYANAMMA
LAWS(APH)-1955-9-18
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 14,1955

CHUNDRU VENKANNA Appellant
VERSUS
CHUNDRU SATYANARAYANAMMA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MADAMANCHI GOVINDAYYA VS. MADAMANCHI CHIMPIRAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1965-9-18] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Satyanarayana Raju, J. - (1.)Appeal No. 10 of 1950 : This is a defendants' appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, awarding maintenance and giving other incidental reliefs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the wife of the 1st defendant. They lived together for about 20 years when the plaintiff left him in March 1947. After the plaintiff left the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant married again. The suit was filed for recovery of future and past maintenance at the rate of 100 bags of paddy every year, for residence in the B schedule property and for delivery of moveables described in C and D Schedules.
(2.)The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance by reason of the second marriage of the 1st defendant. He found that the 1st defendant owned 12 acres of wet land yielding 168 bags per year. Having regard to the other circumstances mentioned by him, he awarded future maintenance at the rate of 40 bags per year and past maintenance from March 1947 to March 1948 at the rate of 20 bags per year. As regards the moveables, he awarded Rs. 390/- and, obviously by oversight, he did not give any amount towards residence. The defendants have preferred the above appeal questioning the rate of maintenance. The plaintiff has preferred AppealNo. 773 of 1950 in so far as the decree of the lower court went against her.
(3.)In A. S. No. 10 of 1950, learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the finding of the learned Judge that the yield froe the suit lands is 14 bage per acre is not supported by the evidence adduced in the case. P. Ws. 3, 4, 7 and 8 examined on the side of the plaintiff, depose that the rent of one acre of land is 12 bags whereas in the case of direct cultivation it yields 20 bags per acre. On the side of the defendants, D. Ws. 2, 3 and 5 depose that the yield of one acre is 10 bags. The learned Judge, after considering the entire oral evidence, put the yield at 14 bags per acre. Sitting in appeal, we do not think we are justified in interfering with the finding arrived at by the learned Judge on a consideration of the oral evidence. If so, the yield from 12 acres is 168 bags per year. It is also in evidence that the 1st defendant has debts to the extent of Rs. 2,500/-. He has an old mother living with him but she has got 7 acres of wet land which she got from her husband. The 1st defendant has no children. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Judge fixed the rate of maintenance at 40 bags per year which is less than th of the income from the lands owned by the 1st defendant. We cannot say that the rate of future maintenance fixed is unreasonable and, therefore, there is no justification for interfering with it. In appeal No. 773 of 1950, it is contended that, on the basis of the income, the learned Subordinate Judge should have given maintenance at the rate of 60 bags. We do not think having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, that there is any justification for enhancing the rate of maintenance. The plaintiff specifically claimed residence and valued that relief at Rs. 200/- in the plaint. In her evidence she also stated that she wanted a house to reside. There is no cross-examination on behalf of the defendants. The judgment does not disclose that the learned Subordinate Judge applied his mind to this aspect of the case. The plaintiff is certainly entitled to be provided with residence and in the circumstances we do not think that the claim made by her is unreasonable. We therefore award Rs. 200/- towards her right for residence.
;


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