A suit for enhancement of maintenance is maintainable if the claimant has a cause of action based on earlier decrees and judgments in their favor, and the amount of maintenance awarded should be based on the status of the parties and the capacity of the paying spouse to pay.

JUDGMENT

M Venkata Ramana, J. - Upon hearing Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, this matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission having regard to the parameters and application of Section 100 CPC.

2. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was celebrated on 17.02.1991 at Sri Someswara Swamy Temple, Punganur. Within two years of this marriage there were disturbances in between this couple. The respondent began to stay with her parents at Basivinayunipalle of Punganur Taluq, Chittoor District. The appellant was a teacher and had the benefit of upgradation in service leading to becoming a headmaster in the state of Karnataka. He is a resident of Sanganahalli, Bangarupeta Taluq, Kolar District, Karanataka State.

3. O.S.No.13 of 2003 was filed by the respondent against the appellant on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Punganur for grant of maintenance and it was decreed. In the appeal preferred by the appellant in A.S.No.24 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle, the decree and judgment of the trial Court was slightly modified whereby, Rs.2,500/- per month was awarded towards maintenance and Rs.500/- per month towards residence. The appellant has been paying the amount so awarded.

4. M.C.No.30 of 1995 and M.C.No.5 of 1996 were also filed by the respondent against the appellant where the Court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Punganur awarded maintenance in favour of the respondent and against the appellant, which amounts were taken into consideration while passing the decree in O.S.No.13 of 2003 and A.S.No.24 of 2006.

5. On the ground that there has been escalation in the cost of living, the respondent instituted O.S.No.121 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Punganur to enhance the maintenance to Rs.12,000/- per month and Rs.1,500/- per month towards residence from October, 2012, to create charge over the plaint schedule properties. By the decree and judgment dated 07.08.2015, Rs.8,000/- was granted towards maintenance per month from August, 2015 for life in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. The relief relating to creating charge over the plaint schedule properties was denied.

6. Against this decree and judgment, the appellant presented A.S.No.62 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle. The learned appellate Judge upon reappraisal of the material and evidence on record confirmed the grant of maintenance awarded by the trial Court in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

7. It is against this decree and judgment, the present 2nd appeal is preferred by the appellant.

8. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the Courts below did not take into consideration the material on record and failed to appreciate the fact that no material was placed by the respondent to support her claim for enhancement of maintenance amount. The learned counsel further contended that though the maintainability of the suit is questioned by the appellant raising a specific plea, no issue was settled by the trial Court therefor nor the appellate Court considered this question in right perspective in violation of Order-14 and Order-41 CPC respectively, which is a vitiating factor requiring consideration at this stage. Contentions are also raised by the learned counsel stressing on the question of territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court in entertaining the suit, since the appellant is a resident of the State of Karnataka and since the suit was instituted at Punganur in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Thus contending that there are substantial questions of law to consider in this second appeal, a request is made for its admission under section 100 CPC.

9. In the backdrop of the material, it has to be considered now whether the case on hand