Telangana High Court
Gattu Venkatapathi vs Guttu Somanarsamma on 15 November, 2023
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
F.C.A.No.37 OF 2011
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Sri Jagadishwar, learned counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Ravulapati, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 19.01.2011 in F.C.O.P.No.207 of 2008 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Warangal, appellant-husband preferred the present appeal.
3. The respondent-wife had filed a petition under Sections 18 and 23 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 r/w Section 7 of Family Court Act, 1984 against appellant-husband seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month and to award past maintenance of Rs.3,60,000/- for the last three years contending as follows:-
(i) The marriage of the respondent with appellant was performed about forty years ago. They blessed with three children, out of which one daughter died. Thereafter, the respondent-wife was effected with paralysis. 2
(ii) A few years after the marriage, after she delivered two children and when they were in tender age, the appellant left the respondent and their children and leading life of his choice with another lady.
(iii) The respondent-wife is physically handicapped and she brought all the children with support of her parents and her brothers. Appellant-husband did not take care of the welfare of the children and respondent. Therefore, respondent and her children filed a petition vide MC.No.31 of 1983 and the same was allowed. In compliance with the said order, appellant-
husband has been paying an amount of Rs.1,100/- per month towards maintenance.
(iv) The respondent-wife is creeping on the ground even to attend natural calls and she has no means of income. For some time, her son supported her. After his marriage, he is living separately.
(v) The appellant-husband has constructed a huge building in the name of his second wife at Khammam. He is working as a teacher and he never allowed the respondent to join his society. He is drawing an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month towards salary. He blessed with two children through his 3 second wife and they are also majors. He is expected to retire and he will get an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards retirement benefits. He is having moveable properties at his native place and decent house at Khammam.
(vi) The respondent-wife is spending an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month towards medical expenses and future medical expenses will also increase and therefore she needs support of a maid servant for taking care and for domestic help and therefore she sought an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month.
4. The appellant filed counter in the said FCOP admitting that after the marriage the respondent was effected with paralysis and they blessed with three children, out of which one daughter died. However, he had denied other allegations. According to him, respondent deserted him and after recovery from the paralysis, she is staying with her parents. He visited her regularly and paid medical expenses. He brought up his son and daughter and performed their marriage by investing an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-. He spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses of the respondent. He disposed of his agricultural land and residential house at Nellikudur and paid Rs.50,000/- to the respondent. The respondent has purchased a house at Nancharimadugu with the amount paid by 4 him. In spite of above efforts made by him, respondent filed the maintenance case against him and he has been paying an amount of Rs.1,500/- to respondent regularly. The respondent is hale and healthy and she can able to attend her day to day activities without anybodies help.
5. To prove the claim, respondent examined herself as PW.1 and her daughter as PW.2 and whereas, appellant examined himself as RW.1 and also his brother-in-law as RW.2. Respondent had filed Ex.A1-Medical expenses and whereas, appellant filed Ex.B1-Certificate, Ex.B2-Receipt dated 08.05.1996 and Ex.B3- Agreement dated 17.06.1992.
6. On consideration of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 19.01.2011, learned Family Court, Warangal allowed O.P.No.207 of 2008 and granted an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month towards maintenance from the date of petition. Learned Family Court also directed the appellant to pay arrears of maintenance from the month of January, 2009 to till date by deducting the interim maintenance amounts paid by him. He was further directed to deposit the arrears of amount within a period of one month from the said date in the respondent's bank account. He was further directed to deposit the monthly maintenance amount in her 5 bank account on or before 10th of every month. Learned Family Court directed the respondent to furnish her bank account details to the appellant within ten days.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, appellant-husband preferred the present appeal.
8. Sri Jagadishwar, learned counsel for the appellant-husband would contend as follows:-
(i) Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the contention of the appellant that he has been paying maintenance regularly for the last 24 years with a good faith and he has purchased the house in favour of the respondent for her maintenance.
(ii) Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that appellant and respondent are living separately since long time, she had filed the aforesaid case seeking maintenance.
(iii) The findings of learned Family Court are not on consideration of evidence both oral and documentary.
Therefore, learned Family Court erred in awarding an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance and their son is also an employee and respondent can maintain herself.
6
9. Whereas, Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-wife would contend that learned Family Court on consideration of entire evidence both oral and documentary, awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month and there is no error in it.
10. The aforesaid facts would reveal the following undisputed facts:-
(i) The marriage of appellant with respondent was solemnized about forty years prior to the filing of O.P by the wife. They blessed with three children i.e., two daughters and one son, out of which one daughter died. Respondent attacked with paralysis. She is not in a position to survive herself and she has no means of income. Her disability is 95 %.
(ii) The respondent and her children filed a petition vide M.C.No.31 of 1983 and the same was allowed directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.1,100/- per month and he is paying the same.
(iii) Now, respondent filed the aforesaid O.P claiming an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards monthly maintenance and an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- towards maintenance for the last three years, a direction to the appellant-husband to submit 7 retirement and pension papers to Government showing that respondent is wife.
(iv) It is also not in dispute that appellant herein is a teacher appointed on 01.02.1978 and he retired on 31.05.2010.
According to him, his gross salary was Rs.25,000/- per month as on the date of retirement. He received an amount of Rs.11,46,793/- towards retirement benefits. He has been paying an amount of Rs.1,100/- per month to the respondent.
11. Perusal of the record would reveal that appellant and respondent lived for 20 to 25 years and thereafter, she was attacked with paralysis. Appellant left her company.
12. Respondent made an allegation that appellant deserted her and started staying at Khammam with another lady. According to her, appellant got remarried during the subsistence of the first marriage with respondent. He blessed with two children with the second wife and they are also majors. He has constructed a huge building in Khammam in the name of second wife and getting rents. However, respondent failed to prove the same by producing any evidence. 8
13. During cross-examination, appellant-(RW.1) categorically admitted as follows:-
"I was appointed as a teacher on 01.02.1978. I retired on 31.05.2010. It is true that my salary was deposited in my account for the last two years. My gross salary on the date of my retirement is Rs.25,000/- per month. I cannot say the amount deposited towards my pension by 01.01.2011. As I have not received the pension I cannot say whether an amount of Rs.18,000/- and odd was deposited to my account or not. I received Rs.11,46,793/- only towards my retirement benefits. It is true that I was paying maintenance of Rs.1,100/- per month to the petitioner till filing of this petition. My first daughter was born in the year 1975 and my son was born in the year 1980. The petitioner was attacked with paralysis in the year 1983. At that time, I was working at Khammam. Since, 1983 onwards myself and petitioner were living separately. I made efforts to get back the petitioner to my house. I have not got issued any notice to the petitioner to join my society. The petitioner was attacked paralysis to her both legs. She is not in a position to walk. Presently, I am residing in my own house at Khammam. It is consisting of three rooms. I cannot say the names of the in-laws of my children. I never visited the house of in-laws of my children. PW.2 never visited my house after her marriage. Either my son or his wife visited my house. I visited the petitioner at Nanchari maduru of Thorrur Mandal. But this fact was not mentioned either in my counter or in my chief 9 affidavit. I am not having any receipt to show that I paid fee for the studies of my children. My son is intermediate failed. My daughter completed her 10th class. On Ex.B3 does not bear the signature of the petitioner. The witness adds but it bears the signature of my father-in-law and my daughter (PW.2) as witness. I am not having any document to show that I paid Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner for purchasing of house. It is true that I did not say about the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses of my wife in the previous legal proceedings. I am maintaining myself with an meager amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. This much amount is required to eke out livelihood of another person and the same manner I live. It is true that after selling away 40% of my pension I am getting Rs.11,000/- and odd. My pension will be increased as per the increasing of D.A."
14. The aforesaid admissions would reveal that he don't know the names of in-laws of their children and he never visited the houses of in-laws of their children and his daughter (PW.2) never visited his house after marriage. Even his son or his wife never visited his house. Therefore, he cannot say that he had performed the marriages of his son and daughter by spending an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-. He cannot say that he has spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses of respondent-wife. 10
15. According to appellant-husband, he had received an amount of Rs.11,46,793/- towards retirement benefits and his salary was Rs.25,000/- per month at the time of retirement. He sold 40% of pension and getting Rs.11,000/- and odd. Appellant herein is claiming that he is receiving pension by way of depositing into his account, but he failed to file the statement of the bank account to show that he is receiving a particular amount towards his pension. According to his own admission, during cross-examination, he has to receive an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards gross salary as on the date of retirement. It is also not in dispute that he has own house in Khammam. Appellant failed to prove that he has paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards purchase of house to the respondent. RW.2-is his brother in law. His evidence is of no use to the appellant herein. On consideration of the said evidence both oral and documentary only, learned Family Court awarded an amount Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance.
16. It is opt to note that the respondent-wife herein had filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.08 of 2009 in O.P.No.207 of 2008 seeking interim maintenance. Vide order dated 30.03.2009, learned Family Court, Warangal, considering the fact that appellant herein contacted a second marriage with another woman and taking in 11 view the amount of maintenance being paid to the respondent, that too, by suffering a salary attachment and his net salary income being Rs.20,366/- per month as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Z.P.S.S., Teldarupally, awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife towards monthly maintenance.
17. Appellant-husband filed a revision vide CRP.No.2052 of 2009 challenging the said order. This Court vide order dated 30.04.2009 granted interim suspension of the said order on condition that appellant shall deposit an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month on or before 10th of every month. Considering the fact that appellant has been paying the said amount, this Court vide order dated 16.12.2010, disposed of the revision directing the learned Family Court to decide the said O.P in accordance with law. However, this Court made it clear that interim order granted by this Court directing the appellant-husband to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance shall continue.
18. It is also opt to note that, this Court vide order dated 06.06.2011 granted interim stay of the impugned order subject to the condition of the appellant paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month from January 2009 onwards and continue to pay the maintenance at the same rate. The arrears from January 2009 to May 2011 shall be paid within a 12 period of eight weeks from today. He shall pay the monthly maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- by 10th of every succeeding month from June onwards without fail. If the appellant fails to comply with this order within stipulated time, the interim order shall stand vacated without any further reference to the Court.
19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, there is no error in the impugned order. It is a reasoned order and well founded and it does not require interference by this Court in the present appeal. It is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Appellant-husband is directed to pay arrears of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court in two installments within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, liberty is granted to respondent- wife to take steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J _______________ K. SUJANA, J 15.11.2023 ssy