Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N Rajasekhar vs N Syamalamma on 11 February, 2020
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C. Praveen Kumar, Battu Devanand
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
&
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
F.C.A. No. 164 of 2019
JUDGMENT:- (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.
This appeal came to be filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 16.10.2019 passed in I.A.No. 35 of 2018 in O.S.No. 16 of 2019 by IV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Kurnool wherein the application filed by the respondents herein namely wife and daughter of the appellant seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month, was allowed.
Originally, the 1st respondent herein along with her two minor children filed O.S.No. 16 of 1999 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Kurnool seeking past maintenance of Rs.2,16,000/- commencing from 20.12.1996 to 20.12.1999 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for herself and Rs.2,000/- each to her minor daughters (N.Ramya Silpa and N.Amulya) and also future maintenance. She also filed O.P.No. 42 of 1999 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. While the appellant filed O.P.No. 28 of 2000 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, O.P.No. 29 of 2000 came to be filed for the custody of elder child (2nd plaintiff in the suit). By 2 CPK,J & DEV,J FCA_164_ 2019 Common judgment dated 15.05.2001, the learned Judge, while dismissing O.P.Nos.28 and 29 of 2000 filed by the appellant, allowed O.P.No.42 of 1999 filed by the wife and decreed the suit with proportionate costs directing the appellant-defendant to pay past maintenance of Rs.72,000/- to the plaintiffs and also monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the first plaintiff and Rs.1000/- each to plaintiffs 2 and 3. It appears that the said Common Judgment has become final.
Thereafter, the present application in I.A.No. 35 of 2018 came to be filed by the wife and her daughter - N.Amulya seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.30,000/- on the ground that the appellant - husband is working as Assistant Executive Engineer at Guntakal and getting monthly salary of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is said that they are living in a rented house Kurnool by paying exorbitant rent. It is further pleaded that the 2nd respondent herein is studying B.Pharmacy and she needs substantial amount to meet her educational expenses. The appellant filed counter in I.A.No. 35 of 2018 denying the averments of the affidavit. According to him, he brought up his first daughter N.Ramya Shilpa, educated her up to B.Tech Degree and has peen paying Rs.9,000/- per month regularly instead of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondents as decreed in the suit. In order to prove their case, the respondents herein examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 and the appellant examined himself as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 -
3 CPK,J & DEV,J FCA_164_ 2019 salary certificate. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court allowed the application enhancing the maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. Challenging the same, the appellant - husband has filed the present appeal.
A perusal of Ex.B1 and the evidence of PW1 goes to show that the appellant is working as Assistant Executive Engineer and drawing a net salary of Rs.1,35,000/- p.m. The facts show that the appellant is working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department, the 2nd respondent is studying B-Pharmacy and that the daughter and mother live separately by paying house rent in Kurnool. He further admits that the Court directed him to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- but he has been paying Rs.9,000/- p.m. from July 2017 in pursuance of a call received from the 2nd respondent herein that they are not able to meet their both ends meet.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the status of the appellant working as Assistant Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department and getting gross salary of Rs.1,65,000/- which is evident from the admissions made by him in his evidence, we are of the view that the trial Court rightly enhanced the maintenance to Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to her daughter respectively. Hence, the impugned order cannot be said to be improper or incorrect. That 4 CPK,J & DEV,J FCA_164_ 2019 apart, the appellant is hereby directed to pay arrears if any from the date of the petition within a period of twenty months in equal instalments. The extra amount of Rs.6,000/- p.m. paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted in the arears to be payable to the respondents.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
__________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 11.02.2020 _________________ BATTU DEVANAND, J bcj