The legal principle established is that under Section 18 (2) (b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a Hindu wife is entitled to maintenance if she has a reasonable apprehension of harm or injury due to cruelty from her husband.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. This Appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and under Order XXXXI Rule 1 r/w Section 96 of CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.4.2003, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, in O.S. No. 86 of 2001, wherein and whereby the leaned Judge partly decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 750/- p.m. to the respondent towards her maintenance.

2. The facts that led to the filing of the present appeal, succinctly, are as follows:

3. The respondent filed the above referred suit stating that her marriage with the appellant was performed as per caste custom and Hindu rites on 30.12.1996. After a short period of the marriage, the appellant started harassing her saying that he was not willing to marry her and only on account of compulsion from his parents, he agreed to marry her. The complaint of the respondent was that the mother of the appellant also tortured her and used her to scold her in filthy language. The appellant was incapable of taking any decision independently because he was under the control of his mother. The respondent was unable to maintain herself and hence she filed the suit claiming maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the appellant apart from Rs. 20,000/- towards legal expenses.

4. The appellant contested the suit by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that the marriage between him and the respondent was not consummated. That the respondent had no interest to marry him, and that she intended to marry some other person, and with that intention she never cooperated with the appellant for consummation of their marriage. She used to quarrel with the appellant on one pretext or the other. The respondent used to reside at her parents' house for months together. The respondent demanded him to reside at Hyderabad to which he disagreed as his parents were sick. As the respondent is not cooperating for the marital life, he filed a divorce petition on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, Adilabad district on the ground of desertion and cruelty and after receiving summons in that case, the respondent and her parents started to take revenge against him. The respondent foisted a false case against him and made him to be put under lockup for 2 to 3 days. In that case, at the intervention and duress of the police, an agreement was executed on 20.9.2000 he paid Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent towards marriage expenses and full satisfaction towards her maintenance. According to the said agreement, the respondent shall not initiate further proceedings and shall accept for mutual divorce. Some time thereafter, concealing the above referred agreement, the respondent again filed a criminal case before the Court of XXII MM Court, Nampally. The respondent and her parents also went to police officials and finally on 09.8.2001, it was settled for Rs. 1,20,000/- including the already paid amount of Rs. 50,000/- plus some articles. Before the police the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and agreed to pay the balance amount and articles. However, according to the said settlement, the respondent has to withdraw the present suit and give divorce to the appellant, but she did not. At the instance of the respondent the Criminal Court at Nampally transferred the case to the court below where it was numbered as O.S. No. 86 of 2001. The respondent is earning Rs. 100/- per day by doing tailoring work. Hence the appellant prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance? If so, for how much amount?

ii. To what relief?

6. Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of both sides. During the course of recording of evidence, respective parties examined themselves as P.W.1 and D.W.1. On defendant's side one K. Vittal Rao was examined as D.W.2. However, no document