Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, K. MANMADHA RAO, JJ.
Sri Mathala Chandra Sekhara Rao - Petitioner
Vs.
Mathala Shirisha - Respondent
F.C.A No.38 of 2021
Decided On : 17-02-2022
Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9 - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 18, 18(1), 23(2) – Appeal - Challenging order - Granted maintenance - Maintenance of wife - Whether her claim would fall under any of grounds enumerated under clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of Act.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity in impugned order - Appellant is working in Indian Railways as a Technician and recently got promotion as Grade-I Welder and as per same, his Gross salary is Rs.40,942/- and Net salary is Rs.35,460/- It is an admitted fact that appellant is residing in quarter provided by Railway authorities - He admitted during cross-examination that his brother is an employee and his mother is a family pensioner and they are not financially depending on him - Therefore, except maintenance of respondents and himself, he has no other financial burdens - Though respondents pleaded as if appellant is doing finance business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month, it is not supported by any evidence - No material has been placed on record to show that 1st respondent- is able to sustain herself - So also, appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 1st respondent can sustain herself - Having regard to facts and circumstances of case and submissions of both parties, court do not find any infirmity with impugned order and hence appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Result: Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
K.Manmadha Rao, J.
The present appeal came to be filed, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 [for short, “F.C. Act”], challenging the order dated 18.02.2020 passed in F.C.O.P. No.60 of 2018 by the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short “the trial Court”). By way of the said order, the Court below granted maintenance to the respondents herein @ Rs.9,000/- and Rs.5,000/- per month respectively from the date of the said order.
2. The respondents herein filed the above mentioned F.C.O.P. No.60 of 2018 against the appellant herein for the following reliefs:
(b) Directing the appellant to pay past maintenance to both the respondents @ Rs.6,20,000/- from May 2016 till the date of that petition; and
(c) Costs of the petition and …”
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The brief facts of the case are that :
The 1st petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 30.06.2015 as per Hindu rites and Caste custom at Khargpur. At the time of marriage, her parents spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, gave Rs.6,00,000/- dowry, Rs.1,00,000/- towards vehicle, Rs.60,000/- towards Adapaduchu katnam and also sare samans worth Rs.1,00,000/- besides present two tulas of gold to the respondent as demanded by them. They lived together one and half years and out of their wedlock, they blessed with a baby girl i.e., the 2nd petitioner on 26.8.2016. According to her, from the beginning, the respondent, his parents, his brother and aunt Sarada started harassing her both physically and mentally demanding her to bring more amount from her parents. She pleaded that the parents of the respondent advised her to leave him permanently. She further pleaded that after their marriage, only on four occasions, she went to her parents’ house. Subsequently, her parents invited the respondent on the occasion of their first marriage anniversary, but he refused and insulted by using filthy language, stating that it is to worst to come to their house. After birth of the 2nd petitioner, none came from the house of the respondent and even did not make a phone call for courtesy. Thereafter, so many requests were made by the mother of the 1st petitioner to the respondent to take back his wife and baby girl, but the respondent ignored their words as he was not interested to take her along with girl child and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Though the respondent refused to take them back, she did not lodge any report before the police about their harassment and desertion. She also pleaded that she is an un-employee and herself and her daughter are depending upon her parents, who are more than 70 years old and that she has no movable or immovable properties and has no means for their livelihood. The 1st petitioner mainly pleaded that her husband/the respondent has been working in Indian Railways as a Technician, Grade-II in Wagon Shop at Kharagpur and drawing Rs.60,000/- per month as salary and further he is earning Rs.30,000/- on finance business, in total, he is getting Rs.90,000/- per month and leading lavish life, but intentionally neglecting them to their fate. Hence, she filed the above FCOP for the above said relief.
5. Counter came to be filed by the respondent therein admitting the relationship in between himself and the 1st petitioner therein, but refuting the other allegations made in the 1st petitioner inter alia contending that he studied 10th class, his father and the father of the 1st petitioner worked in Railway department at Kharagpur. There was acquaintance between them, after his father took voluntary retirement, due
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
