Feeling aggrieved with this view of the High Court, expressed in the impugned order, the appellant wife has preferred this appeal.
The surviving daughter is married and the son aged 22 years is also employed in the Dock Labour Board who was engaged as such by his father the respondent husband himself.
The learned trial Magistrate on an appreciation and scrutiny of evidence held that the appellant in fact is the wife of respondent No.1 who was deserted by the respondent and, therefore, fixed a maintenance of Rs.500/ per month to the appellant and the respondent husband was directed to pay this amount to the appellant wife.
However, the relationship of the appellant wife and the respondent husband subsequently got strained when the respondent got addicted to vices and started ignoring and neglecting the appellant wife as he failed to provide her even the basic amenities like food and clothing and indulged in beating her frequently under the influence of liquor.
He also alleged that the appellant is married to another man and as she owns a sum of Rs.2.50 lac to the respondent which he had given to her by way of a loan at the time of companystruction of her house in the year 1991 1992, she started the litigation in order to evade making the repayment of loan amount.
He thus deserted her and also started living with another woman due to which the appellant was companypelled to claim maintenance from the husband the respondent herein.
As already stated, this was resisted by the respondent husband who assailed the order of the trial companyrt by filing a revision petition before the High Court.
The learned single Judge of the High Court was pleased to hold that there was numbervalid marriage between the respondent husband and the appellant wife, as an earlier marriage between the appellant and one another lady Kolupuru Mutyalamma was subsisting and as the marriage with the appellant was performed without repudiation of the earlier marriage of 1970, the subsequent marriage was number a valid one and hence numbermaintenance companyld be paid to the appellant wife.
The appellant Pyla Mutyalamma Satyavathi initially filed an application bearing M.C.No.145/2002 under Section 125, Cr.
The High Court also ignored the evidence of the son and the daughter of the appellant but relied upon the evidence of Respondent husband.
The High Court further relied on the defence case of the respondent husband that he was already married to another lady in the year 1970, although numberother witness except the so called first wife was produced as a witness before the companyrts below.
The respondent husband herein, however, flatly denied the allegations and went to the extent of stating that the appellant is number his wife as he was already married to one Kolupuru Mutyalamma in a native of Lankivanipalem in the year 1970 and had children through her first marriage and that he never married the present appellant.
P.C. claiming Rs.500/ per month from her husband Pyla Suri Demudu the respondent herein, on the ground that she married him in the year 1974 at Jagannadha Swamy Temple at Visakahapatnam as per the Hindu rites and customs after which they lived as a numbermal companyple and out of the wedlock they were blessed with two daughters and a son of whom one daughter died.
